Quote from: Lover of Truth

I don't think the doctrine forbids Catholic Bishops from continuing the Apostolic Church.  It forbids none-Catholics from doing this, or Catholics doing it against the expressed will of the Pope.

It does forbid precisely that, because they cannot continue the Apostolic Church without receiving their Missio as formal constituent of their Apostolicity.

At which point to you believe Apostolic Succession is conferred? It is not a matter of Order, but of Jurisdiction and Order.

The matter of whether Jurisdiction comes from Our Lord directly or through mediation of Peter is not even relevant, as the Rev. Fr. Billot pointed out in his celebrated work "De Ecclesia":

Nam et illi theologi qui episcopalem iurisdictionem immediate a Deo derivari volunt, adhuc
eam sine dubio dicunt a Deo conferri cuм vera et plena dependentia a Summo Pontifice. (Tom. 1, Rome 1909, Questio XV. De Episcopis, p. 691)


The necessity of Papal approval, which you admit to concede but exclude from the transmission of ordinary jurisdiction, is expounded by Canon Law and virtually all commentators of Canon Law. For a perhaps more detailed answer, Hobbledehoy will consult the Fontes of the Code by Card. Gasparri. One example would be Fr. Augustine OSB Commentary, published by Herder in London, 1918:

Quote

From this we must conclude that whereas the potestas ordinis is equal in the bishops and the Pope, the latter is superior to the bishops as to the potestas iurisdictionis; (2) that bishops are superior to ordinary priests both in power, order, and jurisdiction. These conclusions are de fide [...] by virtue of their episcopal consecration, bishops are radically (aptitudinaliter)
qualified to rule a diocese assigned to them by the Pope. Jurisdiction, of course, no matter how we conceive it to be conferred, whether immediately by God through consecration,
or mediately through the Pope, can neither validly nor licitly be exercised without a canonical mission, which, on account of the monarchical principle of the Church, must be imparted by the supreme head. (p. 342)

Before the approval of the Holy See, any nominated, even already consecrated candidate to a Cathedra does not possess any jurisdiction (cf. Const. "Apostolicae Sedis", 12 October, 1869, V, i; "Collectanea", no. 1002), but then immediately and even without inthronization or consecration.


Further, "it is certain", expounds Rev. Fr. Billot SJ:

"[A]d hierarchiam iurisdictionis divinitus institutam illi soli pertinent, qui ex praescripto divinae constitutionis Ecclesiae, in ipsa Ecclesia praesunt cuм iurisdictione propria atque ordinaria." (op. cit., p. 696)

Not even in ordinary times, Bishops without jurisdiction, prelates nullius, heads of congregations or parochial priests are part of the Churches hierarchy. Much less our present day traditionalist clergy!


Nobody but the heretics and schismatics, foremost the Gallicanists and Febronians, have ever taught that jurisdiction is passed down by other bishops. This opinion is censured in the most grave manner by Pope Pius VI. in his brief, "Super soliditate," Nov. 28, 1786 (D 1500):

Quote

All the more must be deplored that blind and rash temerity of the man who was eager to renew in his unfortunate book errors which have been condemned by so many decrees, who has said and insinuated indiscriminately by many ambiguities, that every bishop, no less than the pope, was called by God to govern the Church, and was endowed with no less power; that Christ gave the same power Himself to all the apostles; and that whatever some people believe is obtained and granted only by the pope, that very thing, whether it depends on consecration or ecclesiastical jurisdiction, can be obtained just as well from any bishop.

These men, Febronians and Gallicanists, were Catholics, even enthroned in the most noble and ancient Sees on the other side of the Alps. It is not a matter of "non-Catholics", who are forbidden to ordain and consecrate as they please, but it precisely what makes us Catholic, only to adhere to those Bishops which have been set before us by the rightful authority of the Pope.

The Pope cannot be taken out of the equation, may it be in times of a vacancy or not.


PS: Also, I do not concede that Ratzinger is a public heretic and I accept the Second Vatican Council. But for the sake of argument, I accept the sedevacantist premise, to which I adheared to for several years.

As often, therefore, in accord with this process, established with Peter’s approval, a new bishop was constituted in the early Church, Peter’s authority ratified that selection implicitly.

At least you don't have a problem with Van Noort.  Many bishops have been consecrated with full jurisdiction without the expressed consent of a Pope.  This is a historical fact in ancient times.    

I think you have to admit that the expressed consent of a living Pontiff is not necessary; I believe that point has been proven and we have to move to what would suffice.  I maintain that the original traditional consecrating bishops (who had full apostolic succession) received the apostolic mission from valid Popes and handed that apostolic mission on to their successors who were Catholic.

Please not which paragraphs below are patently false.  You can also grant  any valid points if you like:

Today I continue this series in trying to convince our traditional Bishops and Priests of the concept of "Accepting Responsibility." As noted in the first four segments: Part One - Is the Church Really a Rubber Room?, Part Two - Breaking the Illusion of Lawlessness, Part Three - Being Our Brother's Keeper, and last week To Be Trusted, True Fishers of Men Must Trust, this is an effort to refute all the arguments against the authority of our traditional clergy to act, guide, and rule in the Name of Holy Mother Church. Our traditional hierarchy can and must act, as only they can. For if they do not act, progress shall not be made, and no solution is going to materialize out of thin air. Only in the richly abundant graces that inevitably must flow from their mutual cooperation in apostolic acts can and will they test and discover for themselves, for each other, and for the Faithful, their authority to do all things required of them, up to and including coming together as one to call a Synod of the true Shepherds and from that body, elect a true Successor of Peter.

    Last week I dealt with the objections brought up in citing Pope Pius XII's Mystici Corporis and I will return to that later in this final segment in order to cover every loophole that could possibly remain to totally refute any and all arguments.

    But back in 1964 the organization Paul VI ran was still the Church, and the relevant decisions and changes made in public cooperation with all the nominal Church leaders (in the Vatican II Council), their personal interior status is not relevant to the legality of the opening Vatican II docuмents. But once again, it is Lumen Gentium, the last identifiable official docuмent of the Catholic Church, the one that defined the Vatican-run organization as being not the Church but merely some other sort of body within portions of which portions of the Church would do Her subsisting (thereby defining into existence a new and parallel organization), that also comes into play here.

    It is now time for me to talk about a different part of Lumen Gentium than that which I have previously expounded upon in various places. I refer to paragraphs 21 (second part) and 22 (first part). Let us start with what the paragraphs actually say (I include the first part of 21 lest anyone accuse me of quoting out of context):

21. In the bishops, therefore, for whom priests are assistants, Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Supreme High Priest, is present in the midst of those who believe. For sitting at the right hand of God the Father, He is not absent from the gathering of His high priests, but above all through their excellent service He is preaching the word of God to all nations, and constantly administering the sacraments of faith to those who believe, by their paternal functioning. He incorporates new members in His Body by a heavenly regeneration, and finally by their wisdom and prudence He directs and guides the People of the New Testament in their pilgrimage toward eternal happiness. These pastors, chosen to shepherd the Lord's flock of the elect, are servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God, to whom has been assigned the bearing of witness to the Gospel of the grace of God, and the ministration of the Spirit and of justice in glory.

    For the discharging of such great duties, the apostles were enriched by Christ with a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit coming upon them, and they passed on this spiritual gift to their helpers by the imposition of hands, and it has been transmitted down to us in Episcopal consecration. And the Sacred Council teaches that by Episcopal consecration the fullness of the sacrament of Orders is conferred, that fullness of power, namely, which both in the Church's liturgical practice and in the language of the Fathers of the Church is called the high priesthood, the supreme power of the sacred ministry. But Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college. For from the tradition, which is expressed especially in liturgical rites and in the practice of both the Church of the East and of the West, it is clear that, by means of the imposition of hands and the words of consecration, the grace of the Holy Spirit is so conferred, and the sacred character so impressed, that bishops in an eminent and visible way sustain the roles of Christ Himself as Teacher, Shepherd and High Priest, and that they act in His person. Therefore it pertains to the bishops to admit newly elected members into the Episcopal body by means of the sacrament of Orders.

22. Just as in the Gospel, the Lord so disposing, St. Peter and the other apostles constitute one apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are joined together. Indeed, the very ancient practice whereby bishops duly established in all parts of the world were in communion with one another and with the Bishop of Rome in a bond of unity, charity and peace, and also the councils assembled together, in which more profound issues were settled in common, the opinion of the many having been prudently considered, both of these factors are already an indication of the collegiate character and aspect of the Episcopal order; and the ecuмenical councils held in the course of centuries are also manifest proof of that same character. And it is intimated also in the practice, introduced in ancient times, of summoning several bishops to take part in the elevation of the newly elected to the ministry of the high priesthood. Hence, one is constituted a member of the Episcopal body in virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the body.

    The second part of 22 and beyond goes more specifically into the topic of the role of bishops with respect to the pope in the context of ecuмenical councils, to which the first part of 22 (quoted above) begins to set the tone. Again, I call attention most specifically to the parts I have put in bold, which state that the bare fact of an episcopal consecration of itself is sufficient to convey not only the sacrament and power of orders which is in itself an office of providing sanctification to souls, but also with it the offices of teaching and governing! All further conditions (apart from what is intrinsically necessary per the doctrine (as referenced by the phrase "can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college") are hereby removed. That is to say, the sum total of all the positive law which the Church has developed over the course of the centuries has been, with the official promulgation of this docuмent, entirely swept away! And in its place there is the new positive law that the granting of jurisdiction, of the canonical mission, is itself to be united to the conferring of the final degree of Holy Orders. So now, the bare fact of an episcopal consecration alone is there decreed to be sufficient to convey the apostolic mission of the Church, together with all manner of jurisdiction, faculties, etc. as is needed to complete the Divine Mission.

    And just in case someone might be contemplating some sort of objection to the effect that the existing procedures (having the pope personally appoint and approve each bishop) are merely being "assumed" or "presumed" in this, one must first note the wording that makes it clear that the consecration is enough, without reservation or condition, save that which ties to a bishop's doctrinal need for his authority to come, whether explicitly and personally, or implicitly and legally only, from the pope. That they truly intended to tear out all of the Church's positive law that further regulated and tightened up the process of selecting and appointing bishops is also clear from their "ecuмenical" intention to regard the separated Eastern schismatic churches as being their equal (the other "lung" of the Church!) and of having their own true and life-giving jurisdiction over their flocks. Such steps taken as the infamous Balamand agreement would be unacceptable and impossible unless they truly believed the separated and schismatic and popeless-by-design East Orthodox to be their actual peers and brothers and co-workers in the Lord's harvest.

    One also sees this hinted in Unitatis Redintegratio where it states:

16. Already from the earliest times the Eastern Churches followed their own forms of ecclesiastical law and custom, which were sanctioned by the approval of the Fathers of the Church, of synods, and even of ecuмenical councils. Far from being an obstacle to the Church's unity, a certain diversity of customs and observances only adds to her splendor, and is of great help in carrying out her mission, as has already been stated. To remove, then, all shadow of doubt, this holy Council solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, while remembering the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them, since these are better suited to the character of their faithful, and more for the good of their souls. The perfect observance of this traditional principle not always indeed carried out in practice, is one of the essential prerequisites for any restoration of unity.

    The goal was, again, to impart jurisdiction to the eastern schismatics, to attempt to render lawful and sanctifying-grace-carrying the sacramental actions performed under the auspices of the schismatic bishops. Though not explicitly mentioned, I suppose this would also have to extend (by implication at least) to any other schismatic succession as well, such as Old Catholic (Utrecht), Duarte-line, and so forth.

    But the Council Fathers seem to have forgotten that the bare ability of an episcopal consecration being enough to convey the apostolic mission would still be not enough in those cases where the consecrator, though materially possessing the power of orders, does not possess the apostolic mission. What he does not have, he cannot give. So all of this actually buys the historically schismatic but sacramentally valid lines of holy orders practically nothing. But as I said, it was for later docuмents to attempt to ascribe this jurisdiction to the various false churches and religions by name, specifically. Lumen Gentium merely opened the door to such ideas by allowing, in a general sense, jurisdiction to belong to those who are not answerable, de jure, to the leadership in Rome, nor selected, appointed, and approved as bishops personally by a living pope.

    I note also that though this docuмent legally swept away all restrictive details of positive law which the Church had set up regarding the procedure for the selection and appointment of bishops, the Vatican organization did not heed its own docuмent in this regard, but continues to go through the fiction of an "approval" only through their leader in Vatican City. Such passages of Lumen Gentium are therefore not really even meant for them who are but some separate and parallel and secular organization, but for us who are the Church.

    As I talk of the problems had by the historically schismatic lines, I realize that I have never before nailed down what is to be said regarding Lumen Gentium's attempt to assign jurisdiction to any and every sort of minister of any kind. In particular, the question of one with orthodoxy in doctrine, but valid orders that are schismatic in source and therefore without the apostolic mission, namely, can Lumen Gentium truly assign to them (as it indeed attempts) the apostolic mission? I do not believe it does. However, should any such schismatically-sourced cleric choose to repudiate any schism and heresy associated with the source of their orders, truly become a Catholic, be willing to obtain whatever training or formation is required to function as a Catholic cleric of whatever grade or rank they possess, and who without simony or fraud gains the approval to function in that rank or capacity of at least one who does possess the apostolic mission of equivalent or higher grade, that individual can indeed thereby truly join the ranks of the Church's authorized and jurisdiction-holding clergy.

    So now let's trace exactly how this works, legally. Archbishops Thục and Lefebvre and Bishops de Castro-Meyer and Mendez were one and all personally selected and appointed and approved by known and living popes, Thục by His Holiness Pope Pius XI, Lefebvre and de Castro-Meyer by His Holiness Pope Pius XII, and Mendez by John XXIII (legally valid for this canonical purpose, regardless of any personal deficiencies of John XXIII, owing to the fact that Lumen Gentium has not occurred yet). When Paul VI resigned from the papacy in 1964, all four of these bishops were in good standing with the Church, the Papacy, and with each other. With the papal office closed (revoking Lumen Gentium is what it would take to open it again for occupancy), the diocesan borders dissolved (as I have discussed in other articles), and lawful ecclesiastical jurisdiction capable, de jure, of existing without submission to the Vatican leadership, a permanent collegial status of the bishops decreed, and all detailed regulations as to what vetting needs to take place in order for a Roman Catholic bishop with divine authority scraped away, a small handful of bishops together managed to keep the true Faith, while the vast majority defected.

    And this handful now legally possessed the fullness of what it takes to continue the Church legally and visibly, and to pass on all prerogatives that they had to their successors. Since (as of 1964) the legislation specifies that the bare fact of an episcopal consecration is sufficient to convey the apostolic mission, all Catholic bishops had and have the power and authority to convey their own Church-given apostolic mission to their episcopal succession, and without the obligation to have a pope personally involved in the process, since the "implicit consent" or "legal will" is sufficient wherever the law is followed, as in force at the time.

    The only other consideration for this implicit consent or legal will of the pope is that those providing for the succession and those so consecrated do what they do in communion with the pope, or at least (when there is no pope at a given moment), the papacy. Now who truly carried forth the interests of every true pope from Pius XII clear on back to Peter himself personally? Could it possibly have been the heretics who smashed altars, ripped rosaries apart, and turned everything upside down that these 260-plus popes had one and all lived and died for? Or would it not have to be those who fought to preserve all that the popes lived and died to preserve?

    It could be a legitimate question as to whether one should go with the majority or the minority, but the teachings of the Church are clear in this matter. When one wants to be able to decide between one teaching and another, one is obliged to side with the ancient teaching. By this principle, it is the minority who remained faithful to Catholic tradition who became the true standard-bearers of the Faith, while the majority went off gradually into heresy and schism as their new Novus Ordo sect took shape. So it had been back in the Arian crisis in which only the barest handful were faithful to the true teaching and the rest, a significant majority, heretical to a man. The teaching is clear, and the precedent is docuмented on record. One must either claim that the heretics somehow continued the chain of authority (absurd!), or else that the Catholics continued the chain of authority (what I have always and consistently maintained), despite having had only an empty papal chair (thus far) to gather around.

    That our bishops and clergy are in communion with the ancients is easy, even trivial, to docuмent past all possible refutation. Correspondingly, that the personnel of the Vatican organization who have gone along with the Novus Ordo religion have broken with the ancients in forming their own new religion is equally easy, even trivial, to docuмent past all possible refutation. But what about the "hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college" mentioned by Lumen Gentium, in particular, the "head" part? With no pope, even in any sort of "material" or legal or canonical or visible sense, let alone in any Petrine sense, the "head" must be, in practice, the Papal chair itself, until a man is elected to fill it.

    Now, in all justice and common sense, who does the Papal chair belong to? It cannot belong to heretics. It can only belong to Catholics, to the real Church, to we traditionalists, one and all taken together collectively. While we traditional Catholics don't have a pope, we do have the (vacant) papal chair with us, and only with us. By being visibly in union with all popes to have been, and any as may yet come, we demonstrate and prove our filial devotion to all real popes the Church has ever had, or ever will, and thereby to our Lord Himself who grants each of them His authority as His vicars. When it comes to the question of the distinctively Vatican II Novus Ordo teachings, the will and teaching of all the Roman Catholic popes is clear and definitive, as I have docuмented in Appendix A of my book, The Resurrection of the Roman Catholic Church.

    Finally, what about our bishop's communion with each other? After all, in the ancient days when popes routinely did not participate personally in the selection or appointment or approval of bishops, the other surrounding bishops were still key in this. We know that Abps. Thục and Lefebvre must have known each other well enough and respected each other since Lefebvre was able to point certain persons to Thục, who in turn listened to the persons and considered (and granted) their requests at what he was led to believe was Lefebvre's advice. And of course, the close working relationship between Lefebvre and de Castro-Meyer, to the point of performing their consecrations together (de Castro-Meyer as co-consecrator), is beyond doubt. Finally, I believe that at least about a dozen, perhaps even more, other bishops approved and supported Thục and Lefebvre (and de Castro-Meyer) in their actions, even though they left no episcopal succession, though some did ordain specifically traditional priests in the traditional manner, such as he that ordained Oliver Oravec to the priesthood.

    Among such bishops was Mendez who himself later on became the last of the four bishops who have provided for the future of the Church, and the friendly and approving correspondence between him and Lefebvre is also docuмented. He would put in good words for the Archbishop, who thanked him in return. Later on he ordained a couple priests for an order of priests who had been formed and trained by Lefebvre, and also consecrated a priest (ordained by Abp. Lefebvre) to the episcopacy. And not only fellow bishops, but also support from priests, religious, and prominent laity were also part of the equation. The four founding bishops upon which the future of the Church now seems to rest were all working in close cooperation with each other and with as many as can truly qualify as Catholics, serving the same purpose and Church.

    It is in this manner that the traditional episcopal successions stemming from these bishops received the apostolic mission of the Church, and as such possess their jurisdiction by true delegation by the Church, directly and literally in accord with the laws, as published and promulgated and in effect at the time of their consecrations and all consecrations since, of the Church.

    Most important of all, note here that at no point does the authority of our traditional bishops to act and guide and rule and govern and teach and sanctify in the name of Holy Mother Church in any way stem from epikeia. Nor does it stem from ecclesia supplet. Nor does it stem from Canons 209 or 2261, nor any sort of "divine" extraordinary or extra-canonical mission, or any vague appeal to the salvation of souls being the supreme law, or claim that a law evaporates in the face of impossibility, or anything else along those lines. It stems from the direct decree of Holy Mother Church, coupled with personal selection by those papally authorized to make such choices and truly in union with the papacy, and as such is regular, habitual, and fully apostolic in character.

    Now, once Lumen Gentium did away with the former Catholic dioceses (in anything but, perhaps, some titular sense) and made the whole world comprise the one remaining Catholic diocese, namely that of Rome, all geographic territoriality of jurisdiction ceased. However, each bishop still nevertheless has a "flock" comprised of what clergy, religious, and lay are attached to them as their bishop. The theological manuals seem to use the terms "diocese" and "flock" in nearly interchangeable ways, but where one ("diocese") is specifically associated with a territorial region, the other ("flock") is slightly broader in that it can be either that or something different, for example the members of a religious order, or of some particular Rite. So while there are no dioceses (other than that now worldwide one of Rome), there remain particular flocks over which their authority in no way differs from an ordinary (Pre-Vatican II era) bishop's authority over his diocese.

    There is one other error I have begun to see cropping up in a few places, namely the idea that if the Church is without a pope, even for a moment, all authority ceases until the next pope is elected. I have already seen where one blogger actually wrote that "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." Of course I have here fully proven that there is nothing "acephalous" about sedevacantist or any other form of traditionalist clerics. But from where comes the idea that only supplied jurisdiction would exist anywhere in the whole Church during any time of a vacant (or usurped) Apostolic See? No quotes with any apparent and direct relevance to such a claim have as yet been brought forth. There only exists a quote, obviously about other things and even so used as quoted, that could be even remotely associated with that claim. And that association requires that peculiar muddling that points supposedly "proven" with some misquote get in the retelling second, third, and fourth hand. Such is the following:

Pius XII told us in no uncertain terms what the Church has always taught concerning interregnums and how the Church is to conduct Herself for as long as such an interregnum may last.

1. While the Apostolic Seat is vacant, let the Sacred College of Cardinals have no power or jurisdiction at all in those things which pertain to the Pope while he was alive...but let everything be held, reserved for the future Pope. And thus we decree that whatever power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff, while he is alive (unless in as far as it is expressly permitted in this, Our Constitution) the meeting of Cardinals itself may have taken for exercising, is null and void.

2. Likewise we order that the Sacred College of Cardinals is not able to dispose of the laws of the Apostolic Seat and the Roman Church in any manner it wishes, nor may it attempt to detract wheresoever from the laws of the same, either directly or indirectly through a species of connivance, or through dissimulation of crimes perpetrated against the same laws, either after the death of the Pontiff or in time of vacancy, [however] it may seem to be attempted. Indeed, we will that it ought to guard and defend against the same contention of all men.

3. Laws given by the Roman Pontiffs are in no way able to be corrected or changed through the meeting of the cardinals of the Roman Church [the See] being vacant; nor is anything able to be taken away or added, nor is there able to be made any dispensation in any manner concerning the laws themselves or some part of them. This is very evident from pontifical Constitutions [on]...the election of the Roman Pontiff. But if anything contrary to this prescript occurs or is by chance attempted, we declare it by our supreme authority to be null and void. - Vacantis Apostolica Sedis, paras.1- 3, Ch. 1; Pope Pius XII, 1945; translated from the Latin taken from Revs. Woywod and Smith's "A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law," Joseph Wagner, 1957).

    During an interregnum, without the pope, nothing can be done, and even if it is attempted it is null and void. Questions about Can. 209, 2261 §2 or any of the rest must be resolved with what already exists, and the commentaries on these canons do NOT support their use during an interregnum.

    Obviously, the intent of the lay author in using the quote from the pope's Vacant Apostolic See docuмent is to convey the impression that all ecclesiastical activity ceases with the death or loss of a pope, and only resumes with the election of another. But the extract itself makes clear that this is an instruction, not to the whole Church, nor even the bishops, but in fact only to the cardinals, as I have highlighted in bold. Remember, the Roman Curia would be typically comprised of the cardinals, perhaps together with some other workers of various ecclesial grades, but with the cardinals occupying all the key posts over and within each curial congregation, tribunal, and office.

    Remember, this cardinal-run Roman Curia is effectively part of the papacy as well, with its various congregations, tribunals, and offices all serving as direct delegates of the Pope to perform his papal duties. He for his part need only review their reports and docuмents, signing them off where necessary, or making other recommendations or emendations where necessary, as he alone possesses infallibility. And when the Church is between popes, all other duties of the cardinals cease as their one main duty to elect the next pope takes precedence over all other responsibilities, and indeed removes their very right to continue in their other responsibilities until that one main responsibility has been fully discharged.

    So with not only the pope (through his death or resignation) not available but also the cardinals as well as they head into conclave, whatever remaining staff within the Curia really does have no real authority to continue in their curial duties. That is in fact a good time for them to go on a vacation or a retreat.

    But there is nothing here to imply that other actions of other, lesser sees (patriarchal, metropolitan, archepiscopal, or episcopal) are also similarly on hold during the vacancy of the supreme See, or that the Church's bishops would go from possessing their ordinary jurisdiction over their flocks to having only supplied jurisdiction until the next pope is elected. Indeed, if every death or loss of a pope implied the loss of all jurisdiction and authority in the Church beyond that which is merely supplied, it would have lost its mark of apostolicity with the death of Saint Peter.

    History itself amply bears out the fact that the Church indeed did carry on during each papal vacancy, even while the papal electors (whether cardinals or whatever they had previously in the various eras) were busy electing the next pope. Diocesan bishops continued their own tribunals and rotas, continued to respond to heresies, continued to ordain priests and perform confirmations (and, during some of the more lengthy papal vacancies, even appointed new bishops), thus carrying on the Lord's business at all times until He comes.

    There is yet another inconsistency to be reported among those who attack our bishops. Many of them seem to believe in the existence of some "Bishop X" (or "Bishop in the woods," to report here an interesting expression I just came across) as being some papally appointed bishop, say, confined in some gulag with no access to the outside world, and who might be maintaining some truly faithful congregation within the gulag. Miraculous longevity aside, many of these who put their hopes in the existence of such a bishop seem to have no trouble accepting the idea that the succession chosen by such a bishop from his fellow inmates of the gulag might preserve his lawful and truly hierarchical and jurisdiction-holding succession, yet when a very few of what few truly faithful bishops as there were and are outside the gulag do the same, somehow that hasn't the same juridical or hierarchical validity.

    Am I the only one able to see the irony, or even the outright hypocrisy of that? Somehow the bare fact of being confined in some gulag imparts to the true bishop so confined the ability to continue the succession without need of any recourse to a pope, while being outside the gulag just as mysteriously deprives all bishops similarly lacking access to a pope (since there isn't one), of the same ability? Perhaps we should speak no longer of a Catholic Church but rather of some "Church of the Gulag" for there alone does it really exist. And by the way, was that bishop ever assigned to the gulag specifically as a diocese?

    Should anyone wish, in the face of what I have just said here, to sustain such a wicked and iniquitous double standard, I believe it is proper to accuse such a person of truly bad will. Such ones positively wish and desire (however much they may protest to the contrary) that the Church be confined to some remote and unknown location, to some mere chimerical existence that on the practical level is no better than sheer fantasy. No, our faithful traditional bishops truly ARE the "Bishops in the woods," except of course they are not "in the woods" but in plain sight, discoverable to all, as the dogma yea verily establishes must always be the case.

    Finally, as many know me to be an ardent conclavist, I can now say a little bit more about that. It is my observation that while such a conclave as I have envisioned would have the full canonical force of any other papal conclave throughout the Church's history, there remains the practical matter of our Catholic people being able to recognize it in a timely and reasonable manner. Desirable as it is to have a real Roman Catholic Pope again, I realize that those whose job it is to perform this conclave, either themselves or whoever they delegate, will find this action far easier to sell to a community of Catholics who are long accustomed to seeing them function together as Catholic clerics should and exercising their authority as truly serves the needs of the Church.

    Indeed, stepping out in faith, seeing the awesome Gospel power of the authority they indeed possess as it is exercised in a variety of lesser tasks of the Church, can be quite a stepping stone to being able to see why and how and that they can and must be the source of the election of the Church's next true pope. God will honor these first few hesitant steps some of them will take, as they begin to recognize themselves and each other as being "the Lord's anointed" and truly worthy of respect and veneration, and their own duty to be themselves venerable in their own character and manner. "Taste and see that the Lord is good," the Psalmist once wrote, and that is what I publish here for the benefit of our truly Catholic (traditionalist) clergy.

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/12Sep/sep18str.htm

Quote from: Lover of Truth

At least you don't have a problem with Van Noort.  Many bishops have been consecrated with full jurisdiction without the expressed consent of a Pope.  This is a historical fact in ancient times.    

I think you have to admit that the expressed consent of a living Pontiff is not necessary; I believe that point has been proven and we have to move to what would suffice.  I maintain that the original traditional consecrating bishops (who had full apostolic succession) received the apostolic mission from valid Popes and handed that apostolic mission on to their successors who were Catholic.

I do not agree with Van Noort and have given sources of greater authority, such as Billot and Journet.

Consent, expressed or not, is needed, and you cannot present any contrary evidence. But consent is an act of the intellect and will, which only a living Pope can give. Van Noort does not speak about dead or future Popes, nor that apostolic mission can be handed over. This is either an innovation of you, or worse, the teaching of the schismatics.

Now we see that you do not agree with Van Noort whereas before I thought you indicated that you would be loath to disagree with him.  So we, according to you, have giant theologians disagreeing on the interpretation, yet I must accept de fide what laymen of our day such as John Lane posit as the correct and unquestionable interpretation.  

No innovations, we are looking at what has been presented as "proof" to the contary by Van Noort and Pius XII.  We look at their exact words and do not find them saying the consent, by doctrine, must be explicit, and they cannot because history would prove them wrong.  In ancient times Bishops with full jurisdiction were consecrated without the expressed consent of Popes yet the doctrine which you believe you are defending was always true.  

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Now we see that you do not agree with Van Noort whereas before I thought you indicated that you would be loath to disagree with him.  So we, according to you, have giant theologians disagreeing on the interpretation, yet I must accept de fide what laymen of our day such as John Lane posit as the correct and unquestionable interpretation.  

No innovations, we are looking at what has been presented as "proof" to the contary by Van Noort and Pius XII.  We look at their exact words and do not find them saying the consent, by doctrine, must be explicit, and they cannot because history would prove them wrong.  In ancient times Bishops with full jurisdiction were consecrated without the expressed consent of Popes yet the doctrine which you believe you are defending was always true.  

Arguing about explicit or implicit consent is absolutely not necessary, because the implicit consent is still necessary, all theologians agree. I am not a theologian, so I cannot disagree with with Van Noort, but I am free to chose other opinions.

Which Pope then did not disagree or remain silent on traditionalist consecrations, therefore given implicit and not expressed consent?

The original consecrators had that assent and the apostolic mission which the passed on.  They form the only body of Catholic bishops in existence.  And they submit to the Papacy any any Pope should we get one.

If you are arguing from the SV perspective the other conclusion is that the Apostolic Church has gone bye bye.

Quote from: Pyrrhos

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Now we see that you do not agree with Van Noort whereas before I thought you indicated that you would be loath to disagree with him.  So we, according to you, have giant theologians disagreeing on the interpretation, yet I must accept de fide what laymen of our day such as John Lane posit as the correct and unquestionable interpretation.  

No innovations, we are looking at what has been presented as "proof" to the contary by Van Noort and Pius XII.  We look at their exact words and do not find them saying the consent, by doctrine, must be explicit, and they cannot because history would prove them wrong.  In ancient times Bishops with full jurisdiction were consecrated without the expressed consent of Popes yet the doctrine which you believe you are defending was always true.  

Arguing about explicit or implicit consent is absolutely not necessary, because the implicit consent is still necessary, all theologians agree. I am not a theologian, so I cannot disagree with with Van Noort, but I am free to chose other opinions.

Which Pope then did not disagree or remain silent on traditionalist consecrations, therefore given implicit and not expressed consent?

The original consecrators had that assent and the apostolic mission which the passed on.

This has been shown multiple times to be false.

They form the only body of Catholic bishops in existence.  And they submit to the Papacy any any Pope should we get one.

Are you backing away from the "papal election" called for by Mr. Ruby?

If you are arguing from the SV perspective the other conclusion is that the Apostolic Church has gone bye bye.

Not at all, we're just not willing to adopt an error or heresy to explain the crisis.

Quote from: Lover of Truth

The original consecrators had that assent and the apostolic mission which the(y) passed on. They form the only body of Catholic bishops in existence.  And they submit to the Papacy any any Pope should we get one.

If you are arguing from the SV perspective the other conclusion is that the Apostolic Church has gone bye bye.

I believe the main problem then lies in the clause which I marked. Is there any magisterial docuмent or extract from a theological treatise, which mentions that apostolic mission can be passed on by Bishops?

Can you show me something that says it can't.  I'm looking for a concrete and clear statement that says that "during an extended interregnum the apostolic cannot be passed by those who have it, this results in there being no bishops having ordinary jurisdiction."  

Were is this so plainly stated that no one can miss it?

One interpretation of the doctrine insists that the Apostolic Church goes bye bye while the other interpretation does not.  

One interpretation says their can't be a long interregnum because the Apostolic Church will go bye bye, the other says God does not let His Church disappear.

Thank you Pyrrhos for cementing me in my position.  You will see my response to your objection in CAPS below:

Thank you for giving me the time to collect my sources and quotes. I finally managed to bring them together.

Preliminary remarks: This writing is not directed against episcopal consecrations under the premise of a vacancy of the Holy See, as long as jurisdiction is not presumed as a result of these consecrations, but also against the SSPX position in lesser extent.

Please excuse possibly many mistakes, I am not a native English speaker, and this is merely the draft of a translation, tough some parts could luckily be taken directly from English sources, explaining the difference in quality of the parts of these translations.

There might also be some issues of format and symbols, which could not be transfered from the text docuмent.

The impatient reader might wish to skip to part III and IV, which is the core of the present discussion. For a deeper understanding, the prior parts are of necessity.


The Origin of Apostolic Mission and Papal approval


Content:

I. The Nature of the Episcopate
1. Whether it is a question of Church law or of faith
2. Oneness of Mission and Hierarchy
II. The Nature of the Episcopacy
III. The Installation of a Bishop
a. Proof from the Liturgy
b. Proof from the Church Fathers
c. Proof from the Magisterum
IV. The Apostolicity of the Episcopate
a. The nature of Apostolicity
b. The question of formal Apostolicity


I. The Nature of the Episcopate

1. Whether it is a question of Church law, or of faith

Those sedevacantists, who wish to attribute Apostolic Mission to the vagrant bishops in the succession of Archbishop Thuc, hold that Papal approval to episcopal consecrations is of mere Church law, and lex positiva non obligat.

On the contrary, it is taught by Pope Pius XII. in his encyclical  “Ad Apostolorum Principis”, 29th June 1958, in regards to episcopal consecrations without Papal approval: “Since, therefore, such serious offenses against the discipline and unity of the Church are being committed, We must in conscience warn all that this is completely at variance with the teachings and principles on which rests the constitution of the society divinely instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord.”i

Pope Pius XII. does indeed looks at episcopal consecrations in the context of the divine institution of the Church. In the same encyclical, the Pontiff emphasizes, that “no person or group, whether of priests or of laymen, can claim the right of nominating bishops; that no one can lawfully confer episcopal consecration unless he has received the mandate of the Apostolic See. Consequently, if consecration of this kind is being done contrary to all right and law, and by this crime the unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunication reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established...” ii
The Roman Pontiff clearly speaks about the general principles which are the fundamentals of the divine constitution of the Church, not only of the Chinese schism.

BUT THIS IS NOT BEING DONE CONTRARY TO ALL RIGHT AND LAW AND IS CERTAINLY NO CRIME AGAINST THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH IS WHAT IS SOUGHT TO BE PRESERVED.

Pope Pius IX. already taught: “But We considered that We should not keep silence on Our right to elect a bishop apart from the three recommended candidates, in case the Apostolic See should be compelled to exercise this right in the future. But even if We had remained silent, this right and duty of the See of blessed Peter would have remained unimpaired. For the rights and privileges given to the See by Christ Himself, while they may be attacked, cannot be destroyed; no man has the power to renounce a divine right which he might at some time be compelled to exercise by the will of God Himself.”iii  Further, quoting St. Pacian, epistle 3 to Sympronius: “But as even the rudiments of Catholic faith declare, no one can be considered a bishop who is not linked in communion of faith and love with Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ; who does not adhere to the supreme Pastor to whom the sheep of Christ are committed to be pastured; and who is not bound to the confirmer of fraternity which is in the world. And indeed "the Lord spoke to Peter; to one person therefore, so that He might found unity from one."iv

WHICH CATHOLIC BISHOP IS NOT LINKED IN COMMUNION OF FAITH AND LOVE WITH PETER?

Objection: It is obvious, that the election of a Bishop is a matter of Church discipline. But the Church discipline is ruled by Canon law.

WE ARE NOT DENYING THE DOCTRINE THAT ORDINARY JURISDICTION FLOWS FROM THE ROMAN SEE, SOMETIMES IMPLICITYLY, MEDIATELY OR BY LEGAL WILL.

It is true, that elections of Bishop are part of the disciplinary area. But it is a fallacy to conclude, that it merely pertains to human law. Pope Pius IX. warns the Armenians in the danger of schism:

DO YOU ACCUSE OUR CATHOLIC BISHOPS OF BEING IN SCHISM?

“The lack, which We bemoan, does surely not pertain the Rites, but very much the discipline; and if the Vicar of Jesus Christ could not rule the discipline everywhere, the guidance of the Church would have been given to him in vain, and this is, what gives this lack the character of a deviation of orthodox faith, which all Catholics ought to have in regards of the Primacy of the Supreme Pastor.”v

WOULD NOT THESE BISHOPS READILY BE RULED AND DISCIPLINED BY THE VICAR OF CHRIST?

A few years later, the same Pope teaches: “...as Our predecessor Pius VI warned, [...], discipline is often closely related to doctrine and has a great influence in preserving its purity. In fact, in many instances, the holy Councils have unhesitatingly cut off from the Church by their anathema those who have infringed its discipline.” vi

WE DO NOT DENY THIS.

The Magisterum of the Church clearly tells us, that the question of episcopal consecrations is primarily a matter of Dogma, secondarily a matter of Church law.

OKAY.

2. Oneness of Mission and Hierarchy

It is known amongst Catholics, that the Mission of the Church is, to “prolong” the mission Christ received from the Father in space and time. While this mission is diverse in regards to certain rights and offices, is still remains one.

TO PROLONG THE MISSION OF CHRIST IS PRECISELY WHY THE CONSECRATIONS WERE DONE.

Just as Christ is, by only one mission of His Father, teacher, sanctifier, King. But indivisible is is unity of his one mission. This mission of Christ from His Father gives His work of Redemption meaning and rightfulness.
Now, Christ has given this mission to His Apostles: “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.”vii

Therefore, “the Church received the mission in its Episcopate unseperated, and creates in each Bishop the respective part of the hierarchy...There is no office of teaching, nor an office of sanctification, nor one of spiritual authority, which are seperated, but...under this three elements, there is a logical connection and an essential bond.”viii

Cardinal Journet comes to the same conclusion by deducing the the Mystical Body from it's head, which is Christ: “Since the sovereign priesthood and the supreme kingship are inseparable in Christ who is the Head, it is to be expected that the powers of jurisdiction and order, their two-fold derivative, should be strictly united in order to act on the Church which is His Body. They constitute, according to St. Paul's image, the system of joints and ligaments by which the increase of charity and truth, and, in a word, the unity of one life, descends from head to body. It would be an error therefore to think of two hierarchies, one of order and the other of jurisdiction. There is one sole hierarchy, with two distinct but interdependent powers.”ix

THIS PROVES OUR POINT OUR BISHOPS HAVE THEIR ORDER AND JURISDICTION, THE CONTRARY WOULD BE PROVEN IF THEY WERE HERETICAL, SCHISMATIC OR APOSTATE.  THEY ARE EITHER CATHOLIC BISHOPS OR NOT.  THEY ARE BISHOPS IN EVERY SENSE OF THEWORD.

“In Him, the Head of the Church, the power to institute the new cultus through His cross and His sacraments and the power to proclaim the supreme revelation -- the sacerdotal power par excellence and the royal power par excellence -- are indissolubly united. If, ascended into heavenly glory, He wishes to continue to make contact with us by His sacerdotal virtue and His royal virtue, He must leave a visible hierarchy among us with a twofold ministerial role, at once sacerdotal and royal.

“HE MUST LEAVE A VISIBLE HIEARCHY AMONG US”  THE VISIBLE HIEARCHY IS NOT IN THE NO.  NOR IS IT HIDDEN FOR THIS WOULD CONTRADICT ITS VISIBILITY.  WHERE IS THE VISIBLE HIEARCHY?

To be authentic, to be Christian, the hierarchy must indissolubly unite the two powers, of order and of jurisdiction.

AMEN!  YOU HAVE TO DENY THAT OUR TRADITIONAL BISHOPS ARE CATHOLIC IN ORDER TO DENY BOTH POWERS.  YOU ARE REALLY MAKING THE POINTS I HAVE BEEN MAKING CLEAR.

They can be accidentally separated in this or that particular subject. But neither one nor the other, taken separately, can constitute the hierarchy, the hierarchy instituted by Christ in the Apostles, the apostolic hierarchy. Neither of them alone can confer on the Church the unchallengeable mark of foundation by Christ, the mark of Apostolicity.”x

This is taught by the first Vatican Council: “But, that the episcopacy itself might be one and undivided, and that the entire multitude of the faithful through priests closely connected with one another might be preserved in the unity of faith and communion, placing the blessed Peter over the other apostles He established in him the perpetual principle and visible foundation of both unities, upon whose strength the eternal temple might be erected, and the sublimity of the Church to be raised to heaven might rise in the firmness of this faith.”xi

We can say, after considering the special nature of the episcopal office, that the three munera (priesthood, kingship and magisterium) or the two powers (of order and of jurisdiction, which includes the magisterium). Therefore, an inner connection exists between the power of order, given in consecration, and or jurisdiction (the other munera), according to the hierarchic structure of the Church.

But cannot remain the power of order standing alone, even merely per accidens, as Card. Journet said himself above? This questions shall be answered in the next part.


II. The Nature of Episcopacy

The Common Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, teaches: “The priestly power is surpassed by the episcopal power, as by a power of a different kind.”xii The Council of Trent declared, “[T]hat besides the other ecclesiastical grades, the bishops who have succeeded the Apostles, belong in a special way to this hierarchial order, and have been "placed (as the same Apostle says) by the Holy Spirit to rule the Church of God" [Acts 20:29]”xiii

OUR BISHOPS HAVE SUCCEEDED THE APOSTLES, THEY WERE CONSECRATED BY VALID SUCCESSORS WHO HAD THE APOSTOLIC MANDATE.  THEY WERE CONSECRATED BY THE ONLY CATHOLIC BISHOPS LEFT.  IF THE CHURCH IS NOT WITH US IT IS NOWHERE.

While priests are "to consecrate this sacrament of the Lord's body and blood upon God's altar.”xiv But the Bishop is “through the episcopal power not directly ordered to God (in the Sacrament of the Altar), but to the Mystical Body”xv

This special relation to the Mystical Body can not be limited to the simple powers to ordain and to confirm. “In the term of the Episcopate, as instituted by Christ, therefore in the actual Episcopate, those two things are contained: the fullness of priesthood and the designation to ecclesiastical jurisdiction.”xvi

The Bishop is first and foremost pastor: He has to have power over his flock (jurisdiction), in order to guide and to teach them.


III. The Installation of the Bishop

How can a Bishop to be said to be Catholic? This can only be the case in it's fullest sense, if they are in the line of formal Apostolic Succession. Otherwise, the Eastern schismatics, the Utrecht schismatics, Old Catholics, even Anglicans or Episcopalians could rightfully claim Apostolicity as well as Catholicity.

We will therefore look into the efficient cause (causa efficiens) of episcopal installion, as well as the object and necessity of formal Apostolicity.


It is known amongst Catholics of every stance, that Bishops have the power to ordain men to the priesthood. But do they also have the same ordinary power to consecrate Bishops?

If the  nature of the Episcopacy would be limited to the power to ordain, it could more easily resolved, that a Bishop does not necessarily depend on Papal consent for any consecrations.

But as we have seen, the Episcopacy, according to it's nature, is in need of a certain jurisdiction. The plenipotentiary power must therefore be found in the judiciary power, not in the power of orders.
 
And if there is a superior in this judiciary hierarchy, then it is his task to elevate inferiors to the decree of an successor of the Apostles, by giving him a specific jurisdiction.

AND “IF” THERE IS A SUPERIOR IN THIS JUDICIARY HIERCHY, “THEN” IT IS HIS TASK TO ELEVATE INFERIORS TO THE DECREE OF AN SUCCESSOR OF THE APOSTLES, BY GIVING HIM A SPECIFIC JURISDICTION.  BUT THERE IS NOT A SUPERIOR IN THIS JUDICARY HIERCHY, THEREFORE WHAT FOLLOWS AFTER “THEN” IS NOT APPLICABLE.

This is in no way in the power of a Bishop, as shall be proven.

a. The Liturgy of the Church

While the office of confession is given to a priest in the end of his ordination (an office, that might not even be granted!), in episcopal consecrations, even in the case of Auxiliary Bishops, the question for the Apostolic Mandate is asked in the very beginning.xvii This shows clearly, that it is regarded as a necessary condition for the rightful reception of the Episcopacy.

b. The Fathers of the Church

St. Gregory of Nyssa writes: “It is due to Peter, to give himself confratres in the Apostolate and to elevate them to this dignity, and we know, that this nobody else can do, but Christ alone: because this power exceeds every dignity and every grandeur; and under the mortals Peter alone has received this power, because he was established by Jesus Christ to be the Head and Prince on his stead, and he alone of all men takes the place of Christ.”xviii (Emphasizes mine, also in the following)

PETER DID NOT GIVE EXPRESSED CONSENT IN EACH CASE BUT THEY ALL HAD THE APOSTOLIC MISSION AND FULL ORDINARY JURISDICTION.  THIS POINT CANNOT BE DENIED YET YOU DO NOT GRANT IT.

Pope Innocent I.: “The Episcopate with all it's authority flows from the Apostolic See.”xix “Peter is the origin of the name and the dignity of the Bishops”xx

WE DON’T DOUBT THIS.

Pope St. Leo the Great: “Everything, which Jesus Christ has given to the other Bishops, he has given him through Peter”xxi, “from him, as from the head, all his bounties spread to the whole body”xxii

SEE ABOVE.

Tertullian wrote: “The Lord has given Peter the keys, and through him to the Church”xxiii

SEE ABOVE.

St. Optatus of Mileve: “St. Peter alone has received the Keys, in order to give them to the other pastors”xxiv.

SEE ABOVE.

One can clearly see, that the only efficient cause (causa efficiens) to effect formal Apostolicity is not the consecrating Bishop (causa efficiens materialis) but the Supreme Pastor (causa efficiens formalis).

SEE ABOVE.

c. The Magisterium of the Church

To begin with, the third chapter of the Dogmatic Constitution “Pastor aeternus” of the First Vatican Council ought to be read, in order to properly understand the context of the Primacy of the Successors of St. Peter in regards to the Bishops:

“Therefore, relying on the clear testimonies of Sacred Scripture, and adhering to the eloquent and manifest decisions not only of Our predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs, but also of the general Councils, We renew the definition of the Ecuмenical Council of Florence, by which all the faithful of Christ most believe "that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and that the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church and faith, and teacher of all Christians; and that to him was handed down in blessed Peter, by our Lord Jesus Christ, full power to feed, rule, and guide the universal Church, just as is also contained in the records of the ecuмenical Councils and in the sacred canons" [see n.694].

NO DOUBT.

Furthermore We teach and declare that the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of ordinary power over all others, and that this power of jurisdiction on the part of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; and with respect to this the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both as separate individuals and all together, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church [which is] spread over the whole world, so that the Church of Christ, protected not only by the Roman Pontiff, but by the unity of communion as well as of the profession of the same faith is one flock under the one highest shepherd. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.

RIGHT ON.

This power of the Supreme Pontiff is so far from interfering with that power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops, who, "placed by the Holy Spirit" [cf. Acts 20:28], have succeeded to the places of the apostles, as true shepherds individually feed and rule the individual flocks assigned to them, that the same (power) is asserted, confirmed, and vindicated by the supreme and universal shepherd, according to the statement of Gregory the Great: "My honor is the universal honor of the Church. My honor is the solid vigor of my brothers. Then am I truly honored, when the honor due to each and everyone is not denied.''

(...)
OKAY.

And since the Roman Pontiff is at the head of the universal Church by the divine right of apostolic primacy, We teach and declare also that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [cf. n.1500 ], and that in all cases pertaining to ecclesiastical examination recourse can be had to his judgment [cf. n. 466 ]; moreover, that the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is not surpassed, is to be disclaimed by no one, nor is anyone permitted to pass judgment on its judgment [cf. n.330 ff.]. Therefore, they stray from the straight path of truth who affirm that it is permitted to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an ecuмenical Council, as to an authority higher than the Roman Pontiff.

NONE OF THIS IS CONTRADICTING THAT THE VISIBLE CHURCH IS RIGHT WHERE IT APPEARS TO BE, IN HER ORTHODOX BISHOPS.

If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, or over the churches altogether and individually, and over the pastors and the faithful altogether and individually: let him be anathema.”xxv

WE DO NOT DENY THIS.  WE HAVE ADMITTED THIS REPEATEDLY.

Only the Supreme Shepherd, and he alone, can confer a part of his flock to the care of a Bishop. Pius IX. Elaborates in his letter to the Armenians:

“Indeed, "the successor of blessed Peter, by the very fact that he is such, has been assigned the whole flock of Christ, so that together with his bishopric he receives the power of universal rule. Then the other bishops must be assigned their portions of the flock so that they can rule over their flock." If the supreme authority of this assignment to blessed Peter and his successors is rejected,

HAVE THE TRADITIONAL BISHOPS REJECTED THIS SUPREME AUTHORITY?  YOU DO NOT NEED LONG QUOTES TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.

the very foundations and prerogatives of the patriarchal churches in particular would be shaken. "Even if Christ willed that Peter and the other leaders have something in common, the other leaders have this only through Peter." "And in fact Peter himself honored the See (of Alexandria) when he sent his disciple, the evangelist: he strengthened the See (of Antioch) which he occupied for seven years, even though he was going to leave it." And both Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, and Marcian, the emperor, openly acknowledged that the approval and confirmation of the Apostolic See was altogether necessary to the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the see of Constantinople.”xxvi

WE DO NOT DENY THIS.

“But We considered that We should not keep silence on Our right to elect a bishop apart from the three recommended candidates, in case the Apostolic See should be compelled to exercise this right in the future. But even if We had remained silent, this right and duty of the See of blessed Peter would have remained unimpaired. For the rights and privileges given to the See by Christ Himself, while they may be attacked, cannot be destroyed; no man has the power to renounce a divine right which he might at some time be compelled to exercise by the will of God Himself.”(...)

WE HAVE NOT DENIED ANY DIVINE RIGHT.

“We will add some remarks on Our prohibition of the enthronement of Patriarchs before Holy See. The writings of the ancients testify that the election of Patriarchs had never been considered definite and valid without the agreement and confirmation of the Roman Pontiff. Accordingly, it is learned, those elected to patriarchal sees always sought such confirmation, with the support of the emperors.”xxvii

AT LEAST IMPLICITLY OR BY LEGAL WILL.  WHERE IS IT STATED THAT EXPRESSED CONSENT OF A LIVING PONTIFF IS ALWAYS NEEDED.  THIS CAN’T BE IMPLIED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT THE CASE IN ANCIENT TIMES.  AND THE DOCTRINE WAS NOT CONTRIDICTED IN ANCIENT TIMES.  THIS POINT CANNOT BE DENIED BUT YOU WILL NOT GRANT IT.  I’M AT A LOSS FOR WORDS AS TO WHY AS THE ONLY APPARENT CONCLUSION WOULD BE THAT YOU PREFER THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH TO DISAPPEAR THAN TO ALLOW THE ONLY CATHOLIC BISHOPS IN EXISTENCE THE FULLNESS OF THEIR AUTHORITY.  YOU HAVE STRAINED A GNAT AND SWALLOWED THE CAMEL SO THAT THE CHURCH CAN DISAPEAR ALL OVER YOUR PURPORTED UNDERSTANDING AND INTERPRATION OF THE DOCTRINE WHICH WE HAVE NOT DENIED.  YET YOU SEEM TO DENY THE APOSTOLICITY OF THE CHURCH.  

The Magisterum and Fathers of the Church are unanimous, the plenary power to install a Bishop is only had by the Successors of St. Peter.

AT LEAST IMPLICITLY OR BY LEGAL WILL.  WHERE IS IT STATED THAT EXPRESSED CONSENT OF A LIVING PONTIFF IS ALWAYS NEEDED.  THIS CAN’T BE IMPLIED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT THE CASE IN ANCIENT TIMES.  AND THE DOCTRINE WAS NOT CONTRIDICTED IN ANCIENT TIMES.  THIS POINT CANNOT BE DENIED BUT YOU WILL NOT GRANT IT.  I’M AT A LOSS FOR WORDS AS TO WHY AS THE ONLY APPARENT CONCLUSION WOULD BE THAT YOU PREFER THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH TO DISAPPEAR THAN TO ALLOW THE ONLY CATHOLIC BISHOPS IN EXISTENCE THE FULLNESS OF THEIR AUTHORITY.  YOU HAVE STRAINED A GNAT AND SWALLOWED THE CAMEL SO THAT THE CHURCH CAN DISAPEAR ALL OVER YOUR PURPORTED UNDERSTANDING AND INTERPRATION OF THE DOCTRINE WHICH WE HAVE NOT DENIED.  YET YOU SEEM TO DENY THE APOSTOLICITY OF THE CHURCH.  

IV. The Apostolicity of the Episcopate

a. The Nature of Apostolicity

This tract, tough relevant, will be left out for the present purpose, especially since the average length of a forum post is already exceeded. Consult Billot and Journet in their ecclesiological works regarding this matter.


b. The Question of Formal Apostolicity

Abbé Berto, peritus to Archbishop Lefebvre in the Second Vatican Council, wrote to the same in regards to Apostolic Succession: “It would be obviously outrageous, when one would presuppose, that a Bishop alone by reason of his own authority, outside the dependency of Peter, could install another in an apostolic function.”xxviii

PLEASE DO NOT TEACH ME THROUGH ONE WHOSE ECCLECIASTICAL THEOLOGY WAS SKEWED.  WOULD THE AUTHORS YOU QUOTE AFFIRM HIS RIGHT TO CONSECRATE BISHOPS AGAINST THE EXPRESSED WILL OF A POPE?  

Formal Apostolicity is given only then, when the Bishop takes part in the continuation of the mission of Christ, which is exercised through the mandate of him, who alone can give this mission – the Vicar of Christ.

Fr. Billot SJ, considered to be one of the greatest Ecclesiologists in modern times and friend to St. Pius X., wrote: “Further, one cannot grasp the judiciary power in the Church without Apostolicity. The reason is obviously the fact, that the Church is essentially the Kingdom of Christ (…). Only those have the mission, whose power is derived from the Apostles of Christ – like the vine grape is lastly always connected to the vine stock. The Apostolicity is truly called that essential mark, from which every other thing in the Church depends necessarily, and with which every other thing is necessarily present, as the promise of Christ evidently shows: ' I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.'” “It is proven easily and evidently, that the Apostolicity of guidance (or “jurisdiction” - Pyrrhos) can indeed only be found in the communion with Rome.”xxix (All emphasizes mine, also the following)

NO DOUBT.  HE IS WITH US ALL DAYS EVEN TO THE CONSUMMATION OF THE WORLD.  WHO IS “US”?  THE N.O. HERETICS PEOPLE IN THE WOODS OR THE ONLY VISIBLE CATHOLIC BISHOPS LEFT?  ANSWER THE QUESTION.

The same theologian has summarized the fountains of the Episcopate in the following manner:

“This kind of passing on of episcopal jurisdiction was necessary, in order to make the legitimacy of the whole ecclesiastical leadership visible and clear.

“VISIBLE” AND “CLEAR”.  ARE THE HERETICAL NON-BISHOPS IN THE N.O. CLEAR, ARE THE BISHOPS IN THE WOODS VISIBLE?

Surely, this legitimacy is dependent in her ontological mode from the mission received by Christ, it's continuation made to be clear till our times; therefore one used to say, that Apostolicity is the most important gift (…). But the Apostolicity of the whole ecclesiastical leadership is in in one fact the most visible, that all power of jurisdiction flows from one See, in which through an unbroken line of succession Bishops (from Peter till the present day), the direct mission of Christ continues identically, see John 21, 15-17. This argument was used by the old Fathers, in order to shame the schismatics and heretics.”

OVER AND OVER AGAIN WE HAVE ADMITTED THIS FACT.  DO YOU CALL OUR BISHOPS SCHISMATICS AND HERETICS?  THEN WHY DO YOU DENY THEM ORDINARY JURISDICTION AND APOSTOLICITY?

J. Bainvel writes in an article on Apostolicity: “Without rightful succession, there is no mission to teach, therefore no authority, and also no divine assistance. (….) It is an obvious fact, that the Church is a hierarchic, social society, and one has to be part of this society, to have part in the authority of hierarchy. Without apostolic succession, the hierarchic is no longer to one instituted by Christ: it would be a human work; and even if the Sacraments remained, the authority would be missing; since the power of order does not bring from itself jurisdiction with her: she is bound to the mission to the rightful succession. It is not enough, to call oneself as belonging to Christ; yes, it is not even enough, to have the Sacraments. One belongs to His own, one belongs to His Church, when one obeys the pastors, which were installed and send by Him..”xxx

THUC WAS SENT BY A VALID POPE AND HAD THE APOSTOLIC MISSION AND HE HANDED IT ON.  IF THE ONLY CATHOLIC BISHOPS LEFT DO NOT HAVE THE APOSTOLIC MISSION THEN WHO HAS IT?


We summarize with Dom Gréa: “To depend on St. Peter means clearly for the Episcopate, to have him as the origin of the mission, and, because of the nature of the Episcopacy, which is this dependency, the Bishops must be sent by him. It is not because of an arbitrary law, but resulting from the necessity of the divine order of the Church, so that alone St. Peter can “make” a Bishop, and that there may be no rightful and possible Episcopate outside of this one origin.”xxxi “The Pope alone installs the Bishops. This right is due to him sovereignly, exclusively, and necessary because of the constitution of the Church and the hierarchy.”xxxii “These coherences are, because of their relation to the fundamentals of the hierarchic order that evident, that one cannot deny or cloud them, without destroying these fundamentals, or that one, by shaking them, one makes the whole economy of salvation of the Church uncertain.”xxxiii

DO OUR TRADITIONAL BISHOPS MAKE THE WHOLE ECONOMY OF SALVATION OF THE CHURCH UNCERTAIN BY ALLOWING THEMSELVES TO BE CONSECRATED TO PRESERVE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN EXISTENCE?  AGAIN IT DOES NOT SAY THAT THEY MUST HAVE THE EXPRESSED CONSENT OF A LIVING POPE.  BUT YOU DO NOT WANT TO GRANT THE POINT AS IT SEEMS YOU PREFER AN INVISIBLE CHURCH OR ONE COMPOSED OF HERETICS OF AN APOSTOLIC CHURCH COMPOSED OF THE ONLY VISIBLE CATHOLIC BISHOPS IN EXISTENCE.


The Council of Trent also condemns the contrary opinion:

”Si quis dixerit, episcopos (...) qui nec ab ecclesiastica et canonica potestate rite ordinati nec missi sunt, sed aliunde veniunt, legitimos esse verbi et sacramentorum ministros: an. s. “

“If anyone says that the bishops (…) who have been neither rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority, but come from a different source, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments: let him be anathema.”xxxiv

WE CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE BEEN SENT BY ECCLESIASTICAL AND CANONICAL AUTHORITY AND DENY THAT THEY COME FROM A DIFFERENT SOURCE.  WE HAVE NOT STARTED A NEW RELIGION.  IF WE HAVE THEN THE STAY-AT-HOMERS ARE RIGHT TO STAY AT HOME.  WHY WOULD WE SUPPORT A CHURCH THAT DOES NOT HAVE THE APOSTOLIC MISSION, THAT IS NOT CATHOLIC BECAUSE IT HAS SEPERATED ITSELF FROM PETER?

Objection: In the case of positive or probably doubt, the Church supplies jurisdiction (can. 209 in the 1917 Code of Canon Law):

The Church in question is not some kind of platonic archetype, but the Catholic Church, visible and structured. Jurisdiction can only be granted by the Vicar of Christ directly and de iure, or implicitely because of epikeia. Even for an episcopal conecration, such a suppletion might be possible.

IT IS VISIBLE AND STRUCTURED?  OKAY SHOW ME WHERE IT IS?  I CAN SHOW YOU BUT YOU DON’T WANT TO ACCEPT IT.  YOU PREFER THE HERETICS AND THE INVISIBLE TO THE ONLY VISIBLE CATHOLIC BISHOPS LEFT IN EXISTENCE.  

But the Church cannot supply where she is not present, that is, outside of her head, that is Peter. He is the one who grants jurisdiction, not some kind of imaginary “Church”. The consent of the Pope is not a formality, but the essential means for the reception of judiciary power.

WE DO NOT DENY THIS, AT LEAST IMPLICITLY OR BY LEGAL CONSENT AS PROVEN BY ANCIENT TIMES.  IF YOU DO NOT GRANT THE POINT, WHICH IS UNDENIABLE THEN AN HONEST DISCUSION IS FRUITLESS.  AS IT IS I AM DISCUSSING THIS WHITH ONE WHO DENIES THAT RATZINGER IS A PUBLIC HERETIC.

Epikeia, now, is not a arbitrary theory. It is only then permitted, when the lawgiver cannot be reached, and his consent must be assumed. “If he were there, he would allow this act”. But according to the sedevacantist thesis, there is nobody who rightfully occupies the throne of St. Peter, and the consent of a non-entity cannot be presumed.

SO YOU DO NOT ONLY DENY US ORDINARY JURISDICTION BUT EVEN EPIKEIA.  AND YOU CLAIM TO BE ARGUING FROM THE SV PERSPECTIVE.  HERE YOU DISAGREE WITH ALL OF US ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE.  I GUESS YOU CAN START ANOTHER THREAD WITH THAT ONE.

Objection: The bishops of the traditionalist resistance have no schism or heresy in mind, therefore they can be counted among the Catholic and Apostolic Bishops.

YOU CALL US THE “RESISTANCE”.  THE RESISTANCE TO WHAT?  THE CATHOLIC FAITH?  A VALID POPE?  WHO DO WE RESIST?

The first morality of an act is determined from it's object (finis operis), and not from the intent of the acting person (finis operantis).

While the subjective reasons might be taken into account in regards to the sinfulness of certain acts, it is of no importance to the objective facts. The Jansenist schismatics, for example, assert their recognition of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff not only in matters of faith, but even of discipline, yet still they remain in schism and heresy since 1763.

DID THE JANSENIST SCHISMATICS CONSECRATE BISHOPS AGAINST THE EXPRESSED WILL OF A VALID POPE?  YES.  DID THE TRADITIONAL BISHOPS?  NO.  ARE YOU CALLING THE TRADITIONAL BISHOPS JANSENIST?  ARE YOU CALLING THEM SCHISMATIC?

Objection: In the course of time, the Church knew different ways of episcopal installations or elections. This shows, that the question in vogue is merely a matter of Church law.

WE HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT THIS IS ONLY A MATTER OF CHURCH LAW.  WE HAVE REPEATEDLY ACKNOWLEDGED AND ACCEPTED THE DOCTRINE.

It is true, that the Metropolitans chose their suffragan Bishops themselves, but this only in their property as delegates of the Pope. “The canonical installation flows from the Pope via the intermediary, by himself installed steps, via the Patriarchs and Metropolitans, to all the Bishops”xxxv

SO YOU AT LEAST ADMIT THE “INTERMEDIARY”.  THUC WAS A DELEGATE OF THE POPE.  HE HANDED HIS AUTHORITY ON.  THOSE WHO HE HANDED HIS AUTHORITY TO SUBMIT TO PETER AND TO ANY VALID POPE.  

This theological necessity has been dealt with in prior parts of this writing and is confirmed by the First Ecuмenical Council of Nicea 325.

Some people have drawn rash conclusions, that delegation of the Pope cannot be of divine right.

WE HAVE NOT DRAWN THIS CONCLUSION BUT ADMIT THE CONTRARY.

This would be the case, if the power of installation would originate from the Metropolitans themselves. But this is not the case: This power remains inalienable. I have quoted Pius IX. in regards to the Armenians before: “The writings of the ancients testify that the election of Patriarchs had never been considered definite and valid without the agreement and confirmation of the Roman Pontiff. Accordingly, it is learned, those elected to patriarchal sees always sought such confirmation, with the support of the emperors.”xxxvi

In any case, the Catholic ought to look at historicist arguments such as those with great care. It was Fr. Döllinger, maybe the greatest Church historian of his time, who could not find historical proof or even found historical proof against the Dogma of Papal Infallibility and had great part in the lamentable Old Catholic schism. It is not the doubtful and ever changing realm of history, but a matter of theology.

WE DO NOT DOUBT THIS.  BUT YOU CANNOT DENY THAT BISHOPS HAVE BEEN CONSECRATED IN ANCIENT TIMES WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED CONSENT OF A LIVING PONTIFF WITHOUT GOING AGAINST THE DOCRINE.  WHY YOU PREFER A HERETICAL OR INVISIBLE CHURCH TO AN APOSTOLIC ONE I CANNOT FATHOM.


Objection:
Lover of Truth said:
There is no clear statement in the manuals which says: “During an extended interregnum the apostolic cannot be passed by those who have it, this results in there being no bishops having ordinary jurisdiction."


This is a fallacy. The manuals cannot contain any remote option and possibility,

YOU ADMIT THAT THE MANUALS DO NOT ADDRESS IT.  SO I AM TO COME TO A FORUM FOR MY THEOLOGY?

 but the correct conclusions can easily be drawn.

THEY CAN?  BY YOU BUT NOT ME?  BY ME BUT NOT YOU?

The assertion above would be similar to: “Nowhere it is said that I cannot fornicate, as long as it is hidden, therefore I can fornicate in hiding”.

INCORRECT.  THE BISHOPS I SPEAK OF ARE NOT IN HIDING.

The first and latter of the sentence in objection is irrelevant.

ACCORDING TO WHO?

Theology teaches that Apostolic Mission cannot be passed on without Papal consent.

WE DO NOT DENY THIS.

The acephalous state of the Church does not play any role, as during a vacancy, the divine constitution of the Church does not change, nor can it change, since it is divine.

IT JUST DISSAPEARS INTO THE WOODS OR INTO THE HERETICAL NON-BISHOPS RIGHT?


The supposed result, there being no Bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, is contrary to faith.

MY POINT EXACTLY.  THAT IS WHY I ACCEPT THE ONLY LOGICAL CHOICE WHILE OTHERS ACCEPT NO CHOICE AT ALL AND ARE LEFT  WITH AN “UNEXPLAINABLE MYSTERY”.

One should not try to manipulate Dogma, but rather alter the man-made premises which are not of faith.

CORRECT.  BECAUSE WHEN YOU DO YOU ARE LEFT WITH A CHURCH THAT HAS NO FORMAL APOSTOLICITY, IS HERETICAL OR HAS VANISHED INTO THE WOODS.  THANKS FOR CLARIFYING THIS ISSUE!!!  I HOPE I HAVE HELPED.

Quote from: Lover of Truth

HE IS WITH US ALL DAYS EVEN TO THE CONSUMMATION OF THE WORLD.  WHO IS “US”?  THE N.O. HERETICS PEOPLE IN THE WOODS OR THE ONLY VISIBLE CATHOLIC BISHOPS LEFT?  ANSWER THE QUESTION.

[...]

DO OUR TRADITIONAL BISHOPS MAKE THE WHOLE ECONOMY OF SALVATION OF THE CHURCH UNCERTAIN BY ALLOWING THEMSELVES TO BE CONSECRATED TO PRESERVE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN EXISTENCE?  AGAIN IT DOES NOT SAY THAT THEY MUST HAVE THE EXPRESSED CONSENT OF A LIVING POPE.  BUT YOU DO NOT WANT TO GRANT THE POINT AS IT SEEMS YOU PREFER AN INVISIBLE CHURCH OR ONE COMPOSED OF HERETICS OF AN APOSTOLIC CHURCH COMPOSED OF THE ONLY VISIBLE CATHOLIC BISHOPS IN EXISTENCE.

[...]

WE CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE BEEN SENT BY ECCLESIASTICAL AND CANONICAL AUTHORITY AND DENY THAT THEY COME FROM A DIFFERENT SOURCE.  WE HAVE NOT STARTED A NEW RELIGION.  IF WE HAVE THEN THE STAY-AT-HOMERS ARE RIGHT TO STAY AT HOME.  WHY WOULD WE SUPPORT A CHURCH THAT DOES NOT HAVE THE APOSTOLIC MISSION, THAT IS NOT CATHOLIC BECAUSE IT HAS SEPERATED ITSELF FROM PETER?

[...]

Now that we're "good," John, do you mind answering the questions I have posited:

Those who have insisted in ascribing to the acephalous and vagrant clerics resisting the modernist anti-Church formal Apostolic succession and the possession and exercise of ordinary jurisdiction, to the detriment of sacred theology and the tranquility of the faithful:

1) Have these individuals consulted these selfsame clergymen at all regarding these issues?

2) What are the criteria, according to above-mentioned individuals, whereby the faithful may readily identify who exactly amongst these same clerics is to be ascribed the "hierarchical claim" and how these clerics are to "exercise" such a claim (for example, what prevents one from ascribing such "hierarchical claim" to Bp. Pivarunas, but denying it to Bp. Slupski, or how can the faithful determine who are the charlatans and frauds, such as Ryan "St. Anne" Scott?).

3) Does the theory that the acephalous and vagrant clergy of the anti-modernist resistance can claim Apostolic succession formaliter and ordinary jurisdiction really solve the question of the visibility and apodictic identifiability of the Church of Christ in our present age?

It seems that one would first have to locate, identify, approach and convince to take a unified stance every traditionalist Bishop and Priest from around the world, and then deduce the signs whereby such a conglomerate of the Episcopacy may truly be deemed as Catholic (communion with the Apostolic See [which would be moral according to the sedevacantists], perseverance in the profession and practice of the Catholic faith, &c.), and then determine which of them is fit or unfit for the "hierarchical claim" and exactly how and why this is determined, and then provide solid, evidential substantiation for the validity of their Orders and of their good faith, &c.

That would be a process entailing endless investigation, research, travels (for the theory seems to have the totality of the anti-modernist clergy in mind, not just those in the United States), interviews, and polemical exchanges and debates (for the theory seems to have all the traditionalist clergy in mind, not merely the sedevacantist ones, and even if it were so, debates would still be necessary because there is no unity amongst them as the various controversies and scandals throughout the past decades substantiate), which in turn would requires much time, money, &c.

It is by such a process (unless a miracle occurs, the expectation of which brings one back to "square one" along with the "bishops in the woods" apologists [as they are represented according to theory in question]) that the clerics of the anti-modernist resistance can be located and assembled, so that the faithful may recognize them as the "hierarchy" and they can convoke a conclave in the name of the universal Church. And even then, the anti-modernist Roman clergy must first be located, identified and approached, that they may be given the opportunity of electing their Bishop, which happens to be the Supreme Pontiff of the universal Church.

Do you see, Mr. Gregory, how problematic this theory is (aside from the doctrinal issues involved)? It just makes the question "Where is the Church of Christ?" all the more complicated and problematic.

Would Christ really abandon us to the point of going through such a wearisome and morally impossible process in order to locate and identify the hierarchy of His Church?

Dear Hobbles,

Just so you know I am not putting you off.  I need to read this and re-read all I have read from Fenton on the issue.

Just to give you an idea on my thoughts before reading the above.

1.  I don't deny the doctrine.
2.  Consecrations were done without the expressed consent of the Pope in ancient times.
3.  Theology manuals claim that implicit, mediate or legal consent is enough for the apostolic mandate.
4.  The traditional bishops are doing what the Church does, just as unquestionably formally apostolic bishops would do in years past.  The are not just administering sacraments in the case of death, or even only having only Sunday Masses.  They have daily Mass, seminaries, bless objects, hear Confessions regularly, Confirmation.  They are doing what the Catholic Church has always done (despite not having permission?).
5.  Insisting that they are acting without the apostolic mandate makes it seem like they are doing something they should not be doing which is fodder for the stay-at-homers.

There are two things I think or at least hope we can agree on.

1.  It is doctrine that bishops receive their jurisdiction from the authority of the Roman Pontiff.

2.  Not all fully functioning bishops in the past had the EXPRESSED consent of a living Pope.

If we cannot agree on both of those statements there really is no reason for further discussion.  If you cannot grant me a valid point, even if ultimately I am defending the incorrect position or interpretation then we are like two ships in the night talking past each other.

The stay at homers believe that we should not utilize the only visible Catholic bishops if they do not have the Apostolic mandate, apart from danger of death.

I'm not sure if that is a topic that should be starting in another thread or here.

Regardless of our interpretation of the doctrine, nothing changes, the Bishops continue to do what the Church does and we continue to act as Catholics have always acted in regards to our Sacramental life.  

Lastly, I do not insist on my interpretation and maintain that my interpretation could be wrong.  I also understand that I am in a very low minority among those who know what they are talking about generally.

But I will add that the Thuc-line issue was very confusing, and at first glance it appeared prudent to avoid them until the issue was thoroughly studied.  I suggest that the interpretation of the doctrine in question and how it is applied, or how it can be applied or not applied has not been as thoroughly studied.  Same with the liturgy atrributed to Pius XII at the end of Pius XII reign, and the una cuм issue.  During an extended interregnum it is a whole new ball game in regards to properly applying doctrine and discipline.

But practically speaking, it makes no difference in our daily lives (as the una cuм can).  Please explain if you belive it does (apart from the home-aloners [who would benefit from my interpretation of the doctrine]).

Must of us, knowledgeablable laymen, and traditional clergy have kind of had to learn on the fly during this interregnum as we have faced questions not before face to the extant that we face them today.  Father Cekeda admits as much when researching Thuc.  Most of us have not systematially learned theology and canon law in a pre-conciliar seminary.  We are piecing it together without a visisble unifying head.

We have to give each other a break when we disagree on obscure and contraversial things.  All I'm really saying is that the common interpretation and application of the doctrine in our times among our living "theologians?" is not necessarily binding.  Additionally, it changes nothing in its application.

Lastly I have asked a couple of times if the Church is left without electing a Pope or if we should wait for a miracle and I am hoping someone can give a good answer to that question.

Thanks again for your patience.

May God bless you and Mary keep you,
John