I understand. I think my "Oh Ladislaus" came off with a negative tone.  I meant it as "Oh yes, I feel your pain".

No; I knew what you meant.

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Doesn't apostolic succession apply to bishops?  

Why the extra layer?  

Archbishop LeFebrvre kept the line going when he consecrated the four.  And when those four decide to consecrate, there will be a continuation of bishops.

Bishops consecrate bishops.  Let's not make this more complicated than it needs to be.  Sure, in the past, men who may have been power hungry or men who have been mistaken added unnecessary burdens but those are for ordinary times.

Yes, let's keep it true.  Bishops consecrate bishops.  

Bishops ordain priests.

The Thuc Bishops should be viewed as valid.  

The LeFebrvre line is beyond any shadow of the doubt valid.

Capt-

Unfortunately, things are not as simple as you would like them to be:

Within apostolicity, you must distinguish between formal and material apostolicity.

Material apostolicity is mere episcopal continuity.

Formal apostolicity is episcopal continuity + jurisdiction.

It is this latter concept of formal apostolicity with which the visible Church is comprised, since if mere material apostolicity sufficed for visibility, the consequences would be that schismatic bishops (e.g., Greek Orthodox) would be part of the visible Church (which is absurd).

Not even the Lefebvre bishops possess formal apostolicity (though any of the traditional bishops COULD possess it if they were later granted jurisdiction to complement their apostolic continuity).

For an interesting topical discussion of the issue, see "Apostolicity" in the old Catholic Encyclopedia here:

http://newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm

Pax,

Sean

On the chance it wasn't obvious, the issue of formal vs material apostolicity has implications for the sedevacantist thesis, since if only formal apostolicity suffices for visibility, it will not allow the sedevacantists to propose saving the visibility of the Church by asserting that bishops possessing mere material apostolicity constitute the preservation of the heirarchy (and therefore visibility).

From the Catholic Encyclopedia article: "Apostolicity of mission is a guarantee of Apostolicity of doctrine."

It follows that if a bishop does not teach the same doctrine as the Apostles (i.e. he has publicly departed from the Church) then he cannot have Apostolicity of doctrine and if he does not have Apostolicity of doctrine, he cannot possibly have Apostolicity of mission.  And if he does not have Apostolicity of mission he cannot possibly have formal Apostolicity.  But it gets worse for the Conciliar bishops.  The new rite of episcopal consecration is doubtful.  It is based on the faulty research of a modernist Benedictine monk (cf. the SSPX article on this topic).  At best one could say that it might be valid but there can be no confidence that it is so.  If it is invalid, which is how all Catholics ought to view it, the Conciliar bishops do not have material Apostolicity.  So while it is a favorite pastime of R&R folks to cast doubt on the Apostolicity of traditional bishops, they ignore the fact that most if not all Conciliar bishops cannot possibly be Successors of the Apostles.

Also, last Pentecost 2013, Bishop Tissier gave a sermon (printed in the May 2013 Catholic Family News) in which he claimed to "have the apostolic succession".  I don't think that can be interpreted to mean merely material succession.  In order to have apostolic succession you must have formal succession.

You can talk all you want about a defection of jurisdiction, but you refuse to address the problem that your alternative would have the MAGISTERIUM defect.

There are possible solutions to the jurisdiction problem, but absolutely none for the Magisterium problem.

Let me repeat:  R&R posits a defection of the Magisterium, and that's heretical.

You can talk all you want about a defection of jurisdiction, but you refuse to address the problem that your alternative would have the MAGISTERIUM defect.

There are possible solutions to the jurisdiction problem, but absolutely none for the Magisterium problem.

Let me repeat:  R&R posits a defection of the Magisterium, and that's heretical.

Recognizing that the Modernist heresy has infiltrated even the Church authorities is not a defection of the Magisterium.

In the great scheme of things, why Modernism would be any different than Arianism? Christendom rocked upon its foundations then as well. Almost overnight, the world woke up one day to find itself Arian. Arianism became so established that almost every single bishop of Constantinople was an Arian. The heresy of Arianism was fought by the grace of God and the Church once more emerged from it victorious. Just the same, through the power of God, who is actually who guides Her, the Church will also defeat Modernism and not precicely by embracing schisms.

There is a spiritual warfare coming from the top to the very bottom in the hierachy, (extending to the individual level) but heresies must exist. God allows it. Our Lord permists heresy in the Church, that those who are apoved may merit by combating it. (Timothy 4)

Catholic Rome is torn, bleeding and wounded, but it will always be the guardian of the Catholic faith and the necessary conditions to maintain this faith. We simply cannot abandon Eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth. We have the promise of victory from Our Lord.

Recognizing that the Modernist heresy has infiltrated even the Church authorities is not a defection of the Magisterium.

No, this isn't about "authorities being infected".  You're saying that an Ecuмenical Council taught error to the Church and that the Church promulgated a bad / harmful Rite of Mass.

Quote from: Nishant

There are only about 15 ordinaries left in the world appointed by Pius XII, if we include bishops appointed by John XXIII, their number increases by about 10, almost all of these near death and emeritus. When these die, the formal Apostolic succession has ceased, the ecclesia docens is no more, ordinary jurisdiction has not been passed on, and the promise of Christ has failed. Either that, or 50+ year sedevacantism is false.

Sedevacantism is false.

And, if Pope Francis approves sacramental marriage for same-sex couples, will you obey?  Will you recognize the morality and licitness of such?  I keep telling myself, "The Catholic faith is not some meme," that is, the product of the human imagination which has been progressively institutionalized over the centuries.  And, if Catholicism is, indeed, true, we can all expect a spectacular end, at least at the Last Judgment!  Here's what I have been trying to do now for many years:

1)  Reconcile the clear Magisterial statements as best you can.  Sometimes this means that you "salute the position and not necessarily the person."  Pope Francis is, at a minimum, a terrible Pope, if not an outright heretic.  Don't follow everything which comes out of his mouth, most of which is bullshit.  Only when he is "teaching and/or legislating from the Chair" do you owe any obligation to him whatsoever, and only then, when he is teaching and/or legislating in accordance with Tradition.  Remember Pope John XXII (not Pope John XXIII); Popes can and do fall into theological error.

2)  The One and Triune God does not command impossibilities.  You don't have to believe in absurdities, so no "squaring the circle" mentality.  That's modernism, an absurdity, unless one is a non-Catholic, which, apparently, most of today's Cardinals are, including, the nefarious Casper.  He deserves to burn in eternal Hell, forever and ever.  You ought to pity him for the endless suffering which awaits him; his life is merely dew at the dawn of a hot and dry summer day.

3)  Sedevacatism has, at some point, to just make sense.  The #2 postulate demands this.  If Pope Francis would ordain women to the priesthood, claim that artificial and/or natural contraception is moral under some circuмstances which involve sɛҳuąƖ relations (remember, birth control is completely licit and moral for individuals who are totally celibate, say, for very rare medical conditions, just never to subvert the "primary ends" of marital sex), say that "gαy sex" is completely without sin, etc., then he is a heretic and not a Catholic.  One cannot, under any circuмstances whatsoever, follow him or even hold out hope that he will return the One True Church to Tradition, even by some "loyal resistence."  It's "game over" at that point.  Only sedevacantism would make sense, nothing else.

Some of them denounced simple sedevacantism as heretical because it provided no mechanism for this, also because most sedevacantists held to the idea that the whole hierarchy had lost their offices and all episcopal sees were formally vacant.

I don't know of a sediprivationist that makes this claim.  SV simply states that a public heretic cannot legitimately hold ecclesiastical office and with this the SP whole-heartedly agrees.  Neither BTW mention the apostate heretic in the canon of the Mass and both act the same towards him in regards to obedience.  They both agree he is not a valid Pope.

We are not at odds with one another.  Some are SV others are SV with a "solution".  

On the other hand those who mention him in the canon and who obey him and pray to "saint JP2" are a whole different category.  Perhaps I understand a bit more why you insist that the traditional Catholic Bishops are not the real hierarchy.  

Anything from a reliable or authoritative source that shows that apostate heretics can be a valid Pope in the full sense of the word?  I would be quite interested in reading it.

I know this is from 5 years ago, but I cannot state how much I agree. This crisis is no doubt a punishment from God, which the world has 100% earned. I pray everyday for it’s end because it stinks. I would love to be able to go to the church down the block and not have to drive 45 mins every Sunday, to not have to argue with novus ordo teachers about theology and such. One good thing comes from this though: it separates the strong from the weak and produces true Catholics who fight for Holy Mother Church. If I was living in the 50s or 40s there’s no way I would spend a s much time as I do now correcting error among people i know and being active (apart from going to mass on days of obligations and Sunday, praying the rosary, and going to confession) in my faith (researching).Sorry for the long post but I agreed with your comment so much I had to reply.

I do want to clarify that I would never consider the Novus Ordo out of principle.  I was just yearning for an era in which I could just be a "normal" Catholic.  Sometimes as Traditional Catholics we can be tempted to fall into a mindset of "exceptionalism".  Of course, in every era of the Church there have been errors to combat and various other battles to be fought.  That's not what I'm talking about.  I'm talking about yearning for a normal, simple Catholic life where you could just walk down the street to your local Catholic church, visit the Blessed Sacrament, and receive the Sacraments ... and go about the business of saving our souls, instead of always being in polemic mode.