Author Topic: Ecclesia-vacantism is manifestly heretical (Read 11498 times)

Nishant · « **on:** February 03, 2015, 09:48:17 AM »

An increasing number of dogmatic sedevacantists on this forum defend the Dimondite idea that the entire Episcopate, the ecclesia docens, has ceased to exist. This thesis [henceforth ecclesia-vacantism for brevity's sake] is manifestly heretical, because it is a word for word denial of the dogma of the Church's Apostolicity. It is heretical and Protestant to say or think that the Catholic Church can cease to be Apostolic. If someone who holds this thesis furthermore says Catholics cannot err in good faith or become heretics when they do, I accuse that person of being a manifest heretic, for holding to this heresy.

Obertray imondday, to continue the discussion from the other thread, if you disagree, please tell me first of all if you swear with the Oath against Modernism, "I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the Apostles," so help you God? If you cannot or will not, you are a modernist. As discussed on the other thread, and since you only admit dogma, the First Vatican Council speaks of "that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the Apostles" showing that Apostolic succession requires bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, bishops who have succeeded to episcopal sees.

The dogma on Apostolic succession is also taught in the Council in these words, "just as he sent Apostles ... in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time." This statement clearly says that the Catholic Church will never fail to have shepherds and teachers in succession to the Apostles. It immediately continues to speak of "episcopal office," showing shepherds and teachers are bishops who have office and jurisdiction. Pastores et doctores in the Council also always refers to those who exercise an office, and therefore jurisdiction, for example, the Council says of the Pope, "in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians." The ecclesia docens is a technical term to refer to the hierarchical Episcopate, bishops appointed to episcopal office. You claim the ecclesia docens can cease to exist. That is a manifestly heretical and soul-damning error.

Commenting on the Code, Woywod wrote, "The bishops are the successors of the Apostles and are placed by Divine law over the individual Churches, which they govern with ordinary authority under the authority of the Roman Pontiff." Cardinal Manning, a leading Vatican I Council Father wrote, "Even though a number of bishops should fall away, as in the Arian and Nestorian heresies, yet the Episcopate could never fall away ... How many soever, as individuals, should err and fall away from the truth, the Episcopate would remain." explaining that "The Ecclesia docens would cease to exist; but this is impossible, and without heresy cannot be supposed." The same is taught in the Catholic Encyclopedia, by +Gueranger, +Hermann and practically all theologians.

Tell me, do you recognize that Catholics can err in genuince ignorance and good faith? If no, then I accuse you of being a manifest heretic. If yes, then I allow for the possibility that you err in good faith. Nonetheless, the thesis you are defending is shockingly and manifestly heretical. It is outright Protestant and it modernizes the dogma of Apostolicity. Explain what the dogma of Apostolicity entails, and why you deny the sense in which it was defined and traditionally believed. I am bound to warn you that you and all who get their faith from the Dimonds may lose it and gravely risk losing your soul in the bargain.

TKGS · « **Reply #1 on:** February 03, 2015, 10:49:04 AM »

There are "dogmatic sedevacantists" on this forum? I'm sure that's news to Matthew. Please identify them by name so that Matthew can ban them.

While there may be a few out there lurking, I think the real problem is with the dogmatic anti-sedevacantists who routinely declare that denying the claim to the papacy of the heretic Bergoglio puts one outside the Church.

Actually, it's quite amusing. Denying the papacy of Bergoglio puts one outside a church that preaches that virtually everyone goes to heaven. Not sure why it matters to the anti-sedevacantist who is in or out of the Church--it doesn't matter to their pope!

Nishant · « **Reply #2 on:** February 03, 2015, 12:03:11 PM »

Well, TKGS, there are in fact at least three posters here who have stated that that it is possible that the entire Episcopate, the ecclesia docens can cease to exist. One of them was so obstinate in his error he went so far as to accuse Bp. Williamson of being a heretic.

I do not accuse sedevacantists of being heretics. I do not even say that someone who is confused about whether ecclesia-vacantism is a possibility is a heretic. I do, however, sustain that the thesis that every episcopal see can simultaneously become vacant and ordinary jurisdiction cease to exist in the Church is manifest heretical, because it denies the dogma of the Church's Apostolicity, and so serious Catholics must take care to avoid it.

Bellator Dei, please read carefully. I quoted the First Vatican Council "that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the Apostles," do you believe there are no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction in the Church? Yes, I attend Holy Mass at SSPX chapels, and yes, the SSPX Bishops are champions of the Faith, but they are not yet Ordinaries, they can only become such upon Papal confirmation.

In case you recognize theologians as an authority, Woywod continues, "They [bishops] are freely appointed by the Pope. Every candidate to the episcopate ... [needs] institution in order to be the lawful bishop of a vacant diocese. The only one to institute a bishop is the Roman Pontiff."

Apostolic succession requires the succession of bishops to episcopal office or diocesan sees. This comes about by appointment or confirmation of the Pope.

In Theologiæ Dogmaticæ Institutiones, Hermann writes,

Quote

"formal succession consists in the fact that these substituted persons truly enjoy authority derived from the Apostles and received from him who is able to communicate it.For someone to be made a successor of the Apostles and pastor of the Church, the power of order — which is always validly conferred by virtue of ordination — is not enough; the power of jurisdiction is also required, and this is conferred not by virtue of ordination but by virtue of a mission received from him to whom Christ has entrusted the supreme power over the universal Church.

What Apostolicity of mission or Apostolic succession means is explained in detail by the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Quote

Apostolicity of mission means that the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth. This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession. This Apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power. It consists in the legitimate transmission of the ministerial power conferred by Christ upon His Apostles ... An authoritative mission to teach is absolutely necessary, a man-given mission is not authoritative. Hence any concept of Apostolicity that excludes authoritative union with the Apostolic mission robs the ministry of its Divine character. Apostolicity, or Apostolic succession, then, means that the mission conferred by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles must pass from then to their legitimate successors, in an unbroken line, until the end of the world ... Billuart (III, 306) concludes his remarks on Apostolicity in the words of St. Jerome: "We must abide in that Church, which was founded by the Apostles, and endures to this day.: Mazella (De Relig. et Eccl., 359), after speaking of Apostolic succession as an uninterrupted substitution of persons in the place of the Apostles, insists upon the necessity of jurisdiction or authoritative transmission, thus excluding the hypothesis that a new mission could ever be originated by anyone in the place of the mission bestowed by Christ and transmitted in the manner described. Billot (De Eccl. Christi, I, 243-275) emphasizes the idea that the Church, which is Apostolic, must be presided over by bishops, who derive their ministry and their governing power from the Apostles.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** February 03, 2015, 12:21:16 PM »

While I believe that a good many of the V2 bishops are probably formal heretics, many/most do not go beyond accepting the teachings of Vatican II. But if you embrace an error because you believe that the Church taught it, then that rules out formal heresy. So those bishops who just go along with the V2 errors simply because they think they were taught by the Church cannot be accused of formal heresy. Do I really believe that someone like, say, Cardinal Mindszenty, simply because he accepted and went along with Vatican II, became a formal heretic and lost his episcopal office? Absolutely not. At most he was in material error.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** February 03, 2015, 12:33:07 PM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei

Quote from: Ladislaus
But if you embrace an error because you believe that the Church taught it, then that rules out formal heresy.

...
What you mean to say, is that if a Catholic is confused about a particular teaching of the Church, then that rules out formal heresy.

No, if a person is ignorant about WHAT the Church teaches (ignorantia facti) on a particular subject but has the FORMAL INTENTION to believe whatever it is the Church teaches, that's material heresy only.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** February 03, 2015, 12:51:42 PM »

I have to agree with Nishant that to say that the entire hierarchy (meaning validly-ordained bishops with jurisdiction) has defected due to heresy would in fact be heretical.

It simply CANNOT BE TRUE that every legitimate and valid bishop in the world has defected due to heresy.

SSPX bishops are valid but do not have any kind of jurisdiction.

Thuc bishops MAY count with regard to the continuity of jurisdiction if in fact Bishop Thuc had an unrevoked mandate similar to that of d'Herbigny, which conferred upon him any power of the papacy that was not reserved to the papacy by divine right.

But the Dimonds consider almost every Traditional Catholic bishop to be a heretic. In fact, I know of them making no exceptions.

Note, however, Nishant, that this is a different question than the vacancy of the Holy See for 50 years; related but different.

There are other manners in which papal jurisdiction can continue into the episcopal jurisdiction.

In sedeprivationism the material designation of jurisdiction lives on in the material popes and could flow even through a material pope into bishops that had been appointed and then could carry on the jurisdiction formally (if they weren't heretics).

Also, the Eastern Rites have always been considered relatively sui juris in terms of their appointment of bishops. Popes have always allowed them to appoint the bishops but then retained something like a "veto authority" over the appointments, rather than having it the other way around as in the Roman Rite.

Nevertheless, all these scenarios assume the continued existence of legitimate Catholic bishops remaining in the world somewhere.

Unless of course we have a secret underground Sirian hierarchy that has continued on.

obertray imondday · « **Reply #6 on:** February 03, 2015, 12:58:46 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

An increasing number of dogmatic sedevacantists on this forum defend the Dimondite idea that the entire Episcopate, the ecclesia docens, has ceased to exist. This thesis [henceforth ecclesia-vacantism for brevity's sake] is manifestly heretical, because it is a word for word denial of the dogma of the Church's Apostolicity. It is heretical and Protestant to say or think that the Catholic Church can cease to be Apostolic. If someone who holds this thesis furthermore says Catholics cannot err in good faith or become heretics when they do, I accuse that person of being a manifest heretic, for holding to this heresy.

Obertray imondday, to continue the discussion from the other thread, if you disagree, please tell me first of all if you swear with the Oath against Modernism, "I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the Apostles," so help you God? If you cannot or will not, you are a modernist. As discussed on the other thread, and since you only admit dogma, the First Vatican Council speaks of "that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the Apostles" showing that Apostolic succession requires bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, bishops who have succeeded to episcopal sees.

The dogma on Apostolic succession is also taught in the Council in these words, "just as he sent Apostles ... in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time." This statement clearly says that the Catholic Church will never fail to have shepherds and teachers in succession to the Apostles. It immediately continues to speak of "episcopal office," showing shepherds and teachers are bishops who have office and jurisdiction. Pastores et doctores in the Council also always refers to those who exercise an office, and therefore jurisdiction, for example, the Council says of the Pope, "in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians." The ecclesia docens is a technical term to refer to the hierarchical Episcopate, bishops appointed to episcopal office. You claim the ecclesia docens can cease to exist. That is a manifestly heretical and soul-damning error.

Commenting on the Code, Woywod wrote, "The bishops are the successors of the Apostles and are placed by Divine law over the individual Churches, which they govern with ordinary authority under the authority of the Roman Pontiff." Cardinal Manning, a leading Vatican I Council Father wrote, "Even though a number of bishops should fall away, as in the Arian and Nestorian heresies, yet the Episcopate could never fall away ... How many soever, as individuals, should err and fall away from the truth, the Episcopate would remain." explaining that "The Ecclesia docens would cease to exist; but this is impossible, and without heresy cannot be supposed." The same is taught in the Catholic Encyclopedia, by +Gueranger, +Hermann and practically all theologians.

Tell me, do you recognize that Catholics can err in genuince ignorance and good faith? If no, then I accuse you of being a manifest heretic. If yes, then I allow for the possibility that you err in good faith. Nonetheless, the thesis you are defending is shockingly and manifestly heretical. It is outright Protestant and it modernizes the dogma of Apostolicity. Explain what the dogma of Apostolicity entails, and why you deny the sense in which it was defined and traditionally believed. I am bound to warn you that you and all who get their faith from the Dimonds may lose it and gravely risk losing your soul in the bargain.

I will try to respond to this post when I get off of work, I do not have time to keep up with all the responses.

Of course I swear against modernism.

Contemplate what these definitions are speaking of. Hint: The Primacy! Please point to where I have denied the office of Peter or claimed it has ceased to exist.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** February 03, 2015, 01:18:47 PM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei

Quote from: Ladislaus
It simply CANNOT BE TRUE that every legitimate and valid bishop in the world has defected due to heresy.

It doesn't have to necessarily be attributed to heresy. And I don't know who claims that EVERY Bishop in the world has defected (even the Dimonds for that matter).

I was referring to the Dimonds in particular. I know of NO BISHOP WITH JURISDICTION that the Dimonds do not consider as having defected from the Faith due to heresy.

Quote

Invalidity of the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration - this is well debated between traditional priests, most of whom say the new rite is invalid. This would lead to enormous implications. Truly, if the masonic forces wanted to try and corrupt the faith, this would be the most far reaching and most effective way to do it.

But we forget the Eastern Rites, whose Holy Orders have not been invalidated.

Quote

Quote from: Ladislaus
SSPX bishops are valid but do not have any kind of jurisdiction.

This is debatable, but nonetheless true in that they do not possess Ordinary Jurisdiction.

I'm not talking about supplied jurisdictions for administering Sacraments.

obertray imondday · « **Reply #8 on:** February 03, 2015, 09:34:41 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

An increasing number of dogmatic sedevacantists on this forum defend the Dimondite idea that the entire Episcopate, the ecclesia docens, has ceased to exist. This thesis [henceforth ecclesia-vacantism for brevity's sake] is manifestly heretical, because it is a word for word denial of the dogma of the Church's Apostolicity. It is heretical and Protestant to say or think that the Catholic Church can cease to be Apostolic. If someone who holds this thesis furthermore says Catholics cannot err in good faith or become heretics when they do, I accuse that person of being a manifest heretic, for holding to this heresy.

Obertray imondday, to continue the discussion from the other thread, if you disagree, please tell me first of all if you swear with the Oath against Modernism, "I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the Apostles," so help you God? If you cannot or will not, you are a modernist. As discussed on the other thread, and since you only admit dogma, the First Vatican Council speaks of "that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the Apostles" showing that Apostolic succession requires bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, bishops who have succeeded to episcopal sees.

The dogma on Apostolic succession is also taught in the Council in these words, "just as he sent Apostles ... in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time." This statement clearly says that the Catholic Church will never fail to have shepherds and teachers in succession to the Apostles. It immediately continues to speak of "episcopal office," showing shepherds and teachers are bishops who have office and jurisdiction. Pastores et doctores in the Council also always refers to those who exercise an office, and therefore jurisdiction, for example, the Council says of the Pope, "in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians." The ecclesia docens is a technical term to refer to the hierarchical Episcopate, bishops appointed to episcopal office. You claim the ecclesia docens can cease to exist. That is a manifestly heretical and soul-damning error.

Commenting on the Code, Woywod wrote, "The bishops are the successors of the Apostles and are placed by Divine law over the individual Churches, which they govern with ordinary authority under the authority of the Roman Pontiff." Cardinal Manning, a leading Vatican I Council Father wrote, "Even though a number of bishops should fall away, as in the Arian and Nestorian heresies, yet the Episcopate could never fall away ... How many soever, as individuals, should err and fall away from the truth, the Episcopate would remain." explaining that "The Ecclesia docens would cease to exist; but this is impossible, and without heresy cannot be supposed."[/size][/i] The same is taught in the Catholic Encyclopedia, by +Gueranger, +Hermann and practically all theologians.

Tell me, do you recognize that Catholics can err in genuince ignorance and good faith? If no, then I accuse you of being a manifest heretic. If yes, then I allow for the possibility that you err in good faith. Nonetheless, the thesis you are defending is shockingly and manifestly heretical. It is outright Protestant and it modernizes the dogma of Apostolicity. Explain what the dogma of Apostolicity entails, and why you deny the sense in which it was defined and traditionally believed. I am bound to warn you that you and all who get their faith from the Dimonds may lose it and gravely risk losing your soul in the bargain.

Surely you would agree that parts of a paragraph can sometimes be deceiving and lead to false conclusions? So let us examine Cardinal Manning in full. What you have choose to leave out will be the focus.

"It is also matter of faith that not only no separation of communion, but even no disunion of doctrine and faith between the Head and the Body, that is, between the Ecclesia docens and discens, can ever exist. Both are infallible; the one actively, in teaching, the other passively, in believing; and both are therefore inseparably, because necessarily, united in one faith. Even though a number of bishops should fall away, as in the Arian and Nestorian heresies, yet the Episcopate could never fall away. It would always remain united; and the reason of this inseparable union is precisely the infallibility of its head. Because its head can never err, it, as a body, can never err. How many soever, as individuals, should err and fall away from the truth, the Episcopate would remain, and therefore never be disunited from its head in teaching or believing. Even a minority of the Bishops united to the head would be the Episcopate of the Universal Church. They, therefore, and they only, teach the possibility of such a separation, who assert that the Pontiff may fall into error. But they who deny his infallibility do expressly assert the possibility of such a separation. And yet, it is they who have imputed to the defenders of the Pontifical infallibility, that separation which on "Ultramontane" principles is impossible; but, on the principles of those who lay the charge, such a separation is not only possible, but even of probable occurrence.
Vatican Council and its definitions pages 113-114

As we can see Apostolicity has absolutely nothing to do with this explanation. Take note of the underlined that you fail to add in your comment.

The first sentence is condemning Gallicanism, it has nothing to do with Apostolic succession.

The second sentence is talking about unity and regardless of how small the Episcopate and faithful become, they will never be disunited. The Primacy or office of Peter and the Episcopate or office of Bishop can never be dissolved, numbers have no role in this. The Cardinal even uses the word minority. And again this has nothing to do with Apostolic succession.

The sad part is that you flip back a page to 112 of the Cardinal Manning and pick this sentence out of this paragraph:

"It is a matter of faith that the Ecclesia docens or the Episcopate, to which, together with Peter, and as it were, in one person with him, the assistance of the Holy Ghost was promised, can never be dissolved; but it would be dissolved if it were separated from its head. Such separation would destroy the infallibility of the Church itself. The Ecclesia docens would cease to exist; but this is impossible, and without heresy cannot be supposed.
Vatican Council and its definitions page 112

and then attach it to the end of your fragmented comment and make it look as though I deny Apostolicity and call me a heretic based on a misunderstanding of Cardinal Manning. Go back and read your comment.

If there is only one Bishop (which you cannot prove) he is most certainly somewhere.

Now, I have a pop quiz for you. When Cardinal Manning writes:

"They, therefore, and they only, teach the possibility of such a separation"

Who is he referring to?

Nishant · « **Reply #9 on:** February 03, 2015, 10:19:02 PM »

I'm well aware of what Cardinal Manning wrote. I just didn't want to go into it here, because it raises another issue, whether the Pope can ever be separated from the Episcopate, which is also impossible. In fact, I've argued that before, as Ladislaus and others here know. He wrote,

Quote from: Cardinal Manning, Vatican Council and its definitions

"It is de fide, or matter of faith, that the head of the Church, as such, can never be separated, either from the Ecclesia docens, or the Ecclesia discens; that is, either from the Episcopate or from the faithful.

I didn't want to go into it because it is a separate issue, but this is what Cardinal Mannning elaborates upon and it is very standard teaching. For e.g.

Quote from: Fr. Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, 1895

"First, then, the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope ...This argument is in substance the same as applies to other cases of dogmatic facts ... it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined."

I don't disagree with anything in your bolded or underlined section, "It would always remain united; and the reason of this inseparable union is precisely the infallibility of its head. Because its head can never err, it, as a body, can never err ... and therefore never be disunited from its head in teaching or believing. Even a minority of the Bishops united to the head would be the Episcopate of the Universal Church." These statements are exact, I agree with them, do you?

You say two things - you say it has nothing to do with numbers, you mentioned Arianism on the other thread. But Cardinal Manning clearly precludes the possibility that each and every bishop can fall away. That means the end of the Episcopate, which is impossible. At least a few bishops must remain.

You ask me who Cardinal Manning is referring to, and the answer is, the Gallicans and other opponents of the "UltraMontanists" such as Cardinal Manning.

So please answer these questions.

1. Do you agree with the Oath against Modernism that "the succession of the episcopacy from the Apostles" will never cease to exist in the Church?

2. Do you agree with the First Vatican Council that it is "that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction by which bishops have succeeded to the place of the Apostles?"

3. If your answer to 1 and 2 above is yes, do you agree, therefore, that the Apostolicity of the Church demands that bishops with ordinary jurisdiction can never cease to exist? That shepherds and teachers will exist in the Church until the end of time? The ecclesia docens lacks infallibility in a sede vacante but it is still indefectible. It can never cease to exist.

4. Please explain in your own words or by citing a source what the dogma of the Church's Apostolicity entails.

Anne Catherine, who had a vision of our times said, "Among the strangest things that I saw, were long processions of bishops. Their thoughts and utterances were made known to me through images issuing from their mouths. Their faults towards religion were shown by external deformities ... I saw what I believe to be nearly all the bishops of the world, but only a small number were perfectly sound. I also saw the Holy Father" That is what I believe, just as has happened before. Regardless of what you think about it, her statement is perfectly Roman Catholic, orthodox and traditional. Your insistence that the entire Episcopate can cease to exist is not. That would mean the Catholic Church has ceased to be Apostolic, which is impossible.

If you agree that there must be such bishops, I don't accuse your position of being heretical. We will come to this claim you make, "If there is only one Bishop (which you cannot prove) he is most certainly somewhere." This statement does not deny Apostolicity, but we will examine if it is compatible with the doctrine of the Church's visibility. Also, keep in mind that all the Ordinaries appointed by Pius XII (whom you believe to be the last Pope) have died or left office.

Nishant · « **Reply #10 on:** February 03, 2015, 10:30:38 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I have to agree with Nishant that to say that the entire hierarchy (meaning validly-ordained bishops with jurisdiction) has defected due to heresy would in fact be heretical.

It simply CANNOT BE TRUE that every legitimate and valid bishop in the world has defected due to heresy.

Agreed. And yet this is what some sedevacantists still believe happened in the sixties or has happened by now.

Quote

Note, however, Nishant, that this is a different question than the vacancy of the Holy See for 50 years; related but different.

Of course. And whoever makes an argument to prevent sede-vacantism from leading to ecclesia-vacantism, I do not in any way accuse of heresy. I only accuse of heresy someone who outright declares that ecclesia-vacantism is a possibility, or worse, has happened in actual fact. It is neither, it is heretical, and so impossible.

To your other suggestions, I point out two things, first, even a bishop who has been elected to a see needs the Papal confirmation to exercise his office. Second, all of Catholic Tradition teaches us that the episcopal or Apostolic succession comes to us through the papal or Petrine succession. Thus, the indefinite cessation of the Petrine succession is not possible, and will lead, among other things, to the Catholic Church ceasing to be Apostolic, when every bishop in office dies.

Quote from: Dom Gueranger

Yes, the episcopate is most sacred, for it comes from the hands of Jesus Christ through Peter and his successors. Such is the unanimous teaching of Catholic tradition, which is in keeping with the language used by the Roman pontiffs, from the earliest ages ... Rome was, more evidently than ever, the sole source of pastoral power ...thus it is that the divine Founder of the Church, who willed that she should be a city seated on a mountain gave her visibility; it was an essential requisite ; for since all were called to enter her pale, all must be able to see her.

Spirago Clarke explain, "The Pope gives their jurisdiction to the bishops; and no bishop may exercise his office before being recognized and confirmed by the Pope." Every bishop, even those designated to the episcopacy or elected to a see, need the Papal confirmation in order to be an Ordinary, and exercise office and jurisdiction. In Quartus Supra, Pope Pius IX says, "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. Thus, to pass over other names in a well known affair, Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople, and even Photius himself, requested the Roman Pontiff to confirm their elections by his consent.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #11 on:** February 04, 2015, 11:36:25 AM »

Of course Vatican II declared that "Apostolic Succession" exists even among the "Eastern Orthodox".

Quote from: Unitatis Redintegratio

These Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession ...

Ladislaus · « **Reply #12 on:** February 04, 2015, 11:43:04 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

To your other suggestions, I point out two things, first, even a bishop who has been elected to a see needs the Papal confirmation to exercise his office.

I don't know that this is true. I believe that Eastern Bishops are installed and begin functioning as bishops and that Papal "confirmation" comes later. Unless there are grave reasons for essentially "vetoing" the appointment, this typically constitutes a "pro forma" thing. This happens by papal concession of course and not from divine right, and the pope could withdraw this concession at any time, but this concession constitutes an a priori "virtual" papal approval (unless vetoed).

If a pope says, "you are allowed to appoint whatever bishops you want, unless I object", then that gives papal approval to the appointments.

Which raises the interesting point of the Bishop Thuc's "mandate". While the actual text has never been revealed, a very similar mandate (that of d'Herbigny) involves the Pope declaring that the bishop enjoyed all the prerogatives of the papacy that are not incommunicable by divine right.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #13 on:** February 04, 2015, 11:57:32 AM »

In the Patriarchal Eastern Churches (vs. other Eastern Churches), the Pope is presented with a list of candidates and can cross candidates off the list. Other than that, if the candidates are on the list, then no further specific papal approval is required, and the selection / appointment of the bishop is published as an act of the Patriarchal Church and not of the Holy See. With non-Patriarchal Eastern Churches, the selection / appointment is published as an act of the Holy See. So, it would appear that, by papal concession, the Churches have been given basically a sui juris hand in selecting and appointing bishops, and that the Pope merely reserves a kind of "veto" power over the process. Consequently, the appointments would be valid and legitimate unless vetoed by the Pope ... even in a sedevacante period. After the SV period, the pope could obviously veto any candidates he deemed unfit, but in the meantime they would formally exercise their office.

Cantarella · « **Reply #14 on:** February 04, 2015, 12:02:17 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Of course Vatican II declared that "Apostolic Succession" exists even among the "Eastern Orthodox".

Quote from: Unitatis Redintegratio
These Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession ...

Perhaps the reference here is about material apostolic succession; but not formal, because formal requires communion with the Pope.

Quote from: 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia on Apostolicity

“Apostolicity of mission means that the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth. This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession. This Apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power. It consists in the legitimate transmission of the ministerial power conferred by Christ upon His Apostles. No one can give a power which he does not possess. Apostolic succession as an uninterrupted substitution of persons in the place of the Apostles, insists upon the necessity of jurisdiction or authoritative transmission, thus excluding the hypothesis that a new mission could ever be originated by anyone in the place of the mission bestowed by Christ and transmitted in the manner described.”

So even if the Orthodox orders are valid and they are considered to have "material" apostolic succession, it cannot be true apostolic succession (both material and formal), because jurisdiction is essential to it.

Those who pass on Holy Orders have apostolic succession, but not formal succession, and therefore they cannot maintain the mark of apostolicity,. This is why heretics and schismatics may pass on Holy Orders and stand in the succession in one sense but not in a formal, juridical manner.