CathInfo.com

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.

We agree on those points:

1. It is the teaching Pope Pius XII, as stated in his Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis Christi, that the Bishops receive their jurisdiction directly, from the Supreme Pontiff, to whose authority they are duly subordinated in the exercise of their jurisdiction.

2. That is a historical fact, but one which has been abused in the past by such polemicists as the Jansenists, Gallicanists, Puseyites, &c. The opinion that the Bishops receive their jurisdiction directly from Christ Himself in their Episcopal consecration is an outdated theory that is no longer tenable, especially after Pope Pius XII has taught.

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.

From my experience, militant home-aloners who pertinaciously adhere and propagate their errors and heresies will not be convinced by ecclesiological discussions, such as the question regarding of the Apostolicity of the episcopi vagantes of the anti-modernist resistance.

Even if one can theoretically hold that the acephalous clergy constitutes the Ecclesia docens properly so-called, and can demonstrate cogently such a stance, the home-aloners will dismiss the issue entirely by producing lists of "phantom anathemas" that condemn everyone as heretics or schismatics (that is, everyone except the home-aloner himself).

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.

 

I agree, there seems to be a grave neglect of the study of the ecclesiological questions amongst the present day clergy, and this is understandable because they are mostly concerned with dogmatic, moral and pastoral theology, as well as the rubrics of the Missal, Breviary and Ritual, &c.

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]).

As I have said, the militant home-aloners who are obstinate and of bad will in their errors will not benefit from any interpretation and application of the doctrines and principles in question, either yours or mine. Their errors, particularly the manner in which they adhere thereto and propagate them, are mostly manifestations of grave spiritual disorders.

They would benefit more from a more profound explanation of the principles of ascetic and mystical theology, from such eminent theologians as Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, Rev. Fr. Tanquerey, &c.; especially from the writings of the Saints, such as St. Alphonsus, St. Louis-Marie de Montfort, St. Francis de Sales, St. Teresa of Jesus, St. John of the Cross, the Little Flower, &c.

As for "the liturgy atrributed to Pius XII at the end of Pius XII reign," you know well my stance on the liturgical reforms promulgated by authority of Pope Pius XII, and it is yet another issue which is very much misunderstood and neglected in crucial aspects.

I disagree that "during an extended interregnum it is a whole new ball game in regards to properly applying doctrine and discipline" because one must adhere to Holy Mother Church in her disciplinary and magisterial promulgations and decrees. This is why the above-mentioned issue is very important for me.

I do agree with you that "during an extended interregnum it is a whole new ball game in regards to" judging the moral culpability of clergy and laity who err in good faith. The principles of conscience apply in our times, since there is no authority to guide us nor to enforce punitive action against the errant and aberrant.

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.

 

We all are "learning along the way" and just "sharing notes" in these tumultuous times, especially since..

Most of us have not systematially learned theology and canon law in a pre-conciliar seminary.

None of us has had such training, nor could attain to anything similar thereto.

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.

You should consult the clergy, and the best of them will admit that no one has a definitive answer.

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?).

MY CRITERIA WOULD BE THE SAME AS THE CHURCH IN REGARDS TO WHETHER ONE CAN LEGITIMATELY HOLD ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICE.  THEY NEED TO BE PUBLICALLY SCHISMATIC, HERETICAL AND OR APOSTATE TO BE SHUNNED.  I BELIEVE BISHOP SLUPSKI IS JUST AS SAFE (DESPITE HIS PAST) AS BISHOP PIVARUNUS.  I BELIEVE IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY PROVEN THAT RYAN "ST. ANNE" SCOTT HAS BEEN CLEARLY PROVEN THAT HE MUST BE AVOIDED.

I BELIEVE WE ARE ALL OBLIGED TO FORM OUR CONSCIENCES TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITIES AND BE INFORMED ON THE SITUATION TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITIES AND ACT ACCORDINGLY.  FOR ONE IT MAY BE DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER, BUT FOR ALL IT SHOULD BE BASED ON TRUTH AS THEY UNDERSTAND IT AND NOT COLORED BY WHAT THE PREFER TO BELIEVE FOR CONVENIENCE OR ANY OTHER REASON.  THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE IS NECESSARY FOR ALL UNTIL WE GET A POPE.

The problem remains, however, of logistics: how can one do this, especially with clergy whom one has not met. You can speak of Bp. Pivarunas, Bp. McKenna, &c., as opposed to frauds like Scott, because you are aware of the facts of their cases. How shall you come to know the facts, and to demonstrate or prove them to the satisfaction of the faithful, regarding clerics from far off lands, for example?

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?

I THINK IT DOES.  I BELIEVE WE MUST HAVE A FORMALLY APOSTOLIC CHURCH AND THAT IT MUST BE VISIBLE AT LEAST TO SOME.  AND IT WOULD SEEM THAT THESE COULD ONLY BE IN THE ONLY VISIBLE CATHOLIC BISHOPS LEFT.

I agree with the former clause, but disagree as the application of the pertinent doctrinal principles in the latter clause.

WE CANNOT JUST PRETEND TO INSIST THEY HAVE ORDINARY JURISDICTION MERELY BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WE PREFER TO BELIEVE.  BUT I DO NOT THINK WE CAN INSIST ON THE CONTRARY EITHER.  BECAUSE IF THE CONTRARY IS INCORRECT HOME-ALONERS ARE BEING NEEDLESSLY DEPRIVED OF THE SACRAMENTS.

I agree with this, except for two things: the contrary view (that the episcopi vagantes cannot claim Apostolicity formaliter) can be emphasized because of the theological sources and authorities that make it the more tenable than the opposite view, for which one would need burden of proof to hold; also, the home-aloners have devised their own economy of salvation that discards the nature of Holy Mother Church as Christ has established her, thereby misunderstanding the very basic concepts of ecclesiology (and their errors are more akin to spiritual disorders than theological errors, as I have written in my previous post).

I THINK THERE HAVING ORDINARY JURISDICTION AND THERE REALIZING THEY HAVE ORDINARY JURISDICTION (IF IN FACT THEY DO HAVE ORDINARY JURISDICTION) AND ORGANIZING IN ORDER TO HAVE A CONCLAVE IS TWO SEPERATE ISSUES.

Well, this is precisely why you ought to consult the clergy. Why do the CMRI Fathers refuse to participate in "fabricated conclaves"? Could it be that they understand how problematic this would be, not only practically (potentially bringing forth another cult, like the Palmarians) but also on the theoretical plane (for doing so would entail the claim that they speak for the Universal Church, which no one traditionalist group can do at the moment)?

THE CHURCH WOULD BE WITH OUR VISIBLE CATHOLIC BISHOPS (THOSE WHO ARE NOT PUBLICALLY SCHISMATIC, HERETICAL OR APOSTATE).

But then you run into the problem of disputes amongst the Bishops themselves, accusing one another of heresy or schism or error and so forth. The "una cuм" controversy is an example of this.

HE HAS ABONDONED US WITHOUT A POPE AND A SCARCITY OF MASS AND SACRAMENTS AND TRUTH PREACHED DEFINITIVELY IN OUR DAY.

The question wherewith I concluded my post was rhetorical, and I do believe that Christ has not abandoned us at all, even in this darkest of hours.

It is as He told St. Catherine of Siena, when this Seraphic Virgin asked where He was all throughout the terrifying trials and aridities that she was facing in the midst of violent temptations: to which Christ responded that He was in her heart, closer to her than ever before. The more we suffer, and are tempted, and are persecuted, and are desolate, and are confused, and still cling to God, the closer He is to us by holy grace and the closer we draw to him.

Thank you for finally addressing my queries. Please be assured of my prayers.

Dear John,

just a remark: I am not interested in bitter discussion which can easily drift into a very uncharitable area.
I believe everything that could be said was said, and that this discussion will not bring up anything new, nor will it change our respective opinions.

I'll quickly answer your objections and will leave this topic afterwards, only coming back if I, by accident, find something very new and very clear.

Let us remember each other especially in the Holy Rosary on it's feast.

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.

If the consecration of a vagrant bishop in the sedevacantist premise is meant, I do concede. If a claim to jurisdiction is meant, I deny and and I deny the consequent, as the principle of the unity of the Church is the Roman Pontiff, solely.

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

Granted.

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

Good, this is necessary as it is theologically certain, at least.

DO YOU ACCUSE OUR CATHOLIC BISHOPS OF BEING IN SCHISM?

If this means the vagrant bishops under the sedevacantist premise, I deny (any schism) simply speaking. If this means bishops under the same premise who claim jurisdiction and/or refuse communion to other Catholics (Bp. Vezelis, Bp. Kelly), I do accuse.

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

I do not understand the question.

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

I do distinguish, under the SV premise: To prolong the mission of Christ in regards to providing the Sacraments to the faithful in order to maintain the ordinary economy of salvation of the Catholic Church, I concede, but in regards to the continuation of the Apostolic Hierarchy, I deny.

“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?

The question of "where" the visible hierarchy is to be found must be taken separately from the issue of the conferring of hierarchic powers.

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.

That they (the first traditionalist bishops, at least) were consecrated by Bishops who have had ordinary jurisdiction, I grant. But Church demands the Apostolic Mandate for every and single new consecration, even just for the blessing of a territorial Abbot.
The whole point of my writing was, to show, that it is above the capacity of any Bishops but the Bishop of Rome to give the necessary Mission, by whatever means.

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.

I deny, please give prove for this major, minor and conclusion. (Namely, that inferiors automatically inherit the juridical powers of their superiors, and that Bishops can pass on Apostolic Mission).

Just because there is a lack of a superior in the hierarchy, it does not logically follow the the inferiors receive the power resting in the superior. If this were the case, the whole canonical procedures, states of vacancies etc. were useless.

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.

On the contrary, I do grant it, as the wording of implicit or explicit does not concern me. I do not say that expressed consent it necessary, but consent nevertheless.

As I said before, I cannot see what role it plays in regards to the present discussion, whether in ancient times Papal consent was expressed or not.

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

Just to make sure: I don't quote in order to confuse or take pride or whatever, but simply because my own opinion is completely worthless without any proof.

In any case, the traditional bishops who claim jurisdiction (and this is the absolute minority) reject the supreme jurisdiction, as they grant themselves powers they did not receive.

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.  

I do grant it, as you will, since there is some theological controversy involved. Still, I personally believe in a more ultramontane position there.
But, implicit consent or legal will is missing in order that traditionalist bishops receive their missio.

The conclusions have to follow the theological way of reasoning. It is not a matter of prefering anything. My own wishes cannot dictate sound theology.
I was not presently discussion where the Church and her Apostolicity may be found.

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?  

I was quoting Abbé Berto, not Archbishop Lefebvre, who could not receive the very notion of apostolic powers being given by Bishops, let alone against the expressed will of the Pope.

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.

I am not discussing this issue. I have been with the SSPX for some time, and been a sedevacantist much longer, but came back to the so called "Novus Ordo" Church in the beginning of this year.

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?

Because they do not receive it. I do not call them schismatics and heretics by reason of their orders, under the sedevacantist premise.

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?

Please prove the major, namely, that Bishops can pass on Apostolic Mission. You ask me to present a docuмent that states Apostolic Mission cannot be passed on during an Interregnum, yet you do not present one which states otherwise.
(Of course, both statements are not even needed).

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.

It does not matter what I prefer.
Why does every source and every canon speak of the consent of the Pope, if it is not needed in practice? Maybe the Utrecht schismatics are not schismatics after all, as they also never had the expressed consent of a living Pope (polemically speaking).

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.

I do not deny Epikeia if it means that vagrant bishops can be ordained under the SV premise.

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

Traditionalists often call themselves resisting, meaning, against Modernism (or the "New Church").


In any case, the core of my argumentation is as follows:

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).

The formal efficient cause is lacking, even though the material efficient cause if available. It cannot be dispensed with.