Quote from: LoT

Is it really necessary for them to have jurisdiction over a physical territory in order to have formal apostolic succession?  I don't think so ...

Yes, by definition it is necessary. You can't legitimately argue with this because it is a fact.

Scholion 2. Theory of an extraordinary mission.

Since the original Protestants obviously lacked apostolicity of government, they took refuge in an appeal to the theory of an "extraordinary mission." To put it briefly, they maintained that God could at some time raise up a group of men by an extraordinary vocation and confer on them apostolic functions if current apostolic pastors should become viciously corrupt. This was the case, they asserted, with Luther and the other reformers. It is clear, however, if any such extraordinary mission were ever to be granted by God, it would have to be proven by miracles, or other clearly divine trademarks. The plain truth is, however, that Christ's own promises completely rule out the possibility of any such extraordinary mission. Understand now, we are talking about a mission by which a man absolutely apart from and utterly independent of apostolic succession would receive from God the power to rule or reform the Church. Christ conferred sacred powers on His apostles and their successors until the end of the world. Further, He promised them His perpetual and unfailing assistance. Consequently Christ would be contradicting Himself were He ever to deprive the legitimate successors of the apostles of their authority. Granted that fact, it would be a further contradiction for God to confer the same power or a similar power on other men who were not in union with the ordinary successors. In that hypothesis there would be two separate and independent sources of authority, both demanding, by divine right, obedience from the same subjects.

The only thing that could result in such an hypothesis would be confusion and schism in Christ's Church. And in that event, one would imply that God Himself, who willed His Church to be unified, was Himself sowing the seeds of necessary division. From another point of view, God has no need of extraordinary legates, in the sense claimed above, to preserve His Church from corruption.

Apostolicity of membership means that the Church in any given age is and remains numerically the same society as that planted by the apostles.

LoT wrote:

Quote

I am very disappointed in your claim that I am not open to truth.  I'm not monkeying around here.  Sorry you took what I wrote in the wrong way.  It is probably my fault.  To bad we can't look each other in the eye when we discuss.

It certainly appeared that way, but again, I will trust your word.  Instead of mocking the bishops who may or may not be playing golf, as you say, answer the argument.

Do you believe that a bishop can resign his office to an antipope?  That is the argument that I have put forth.  Are you arguing that the antipopes have jurisdiction?

Quote

If I thought I knew the answer for 100% I would be dictating to you as I do on the Salvation issue.  I am open to truth and am offended that you claim otherwise.

You cannot compare the heresy of denying baptism of desire or blood with what I am explaining to you.  There is no heresy in anything that I have written to you.  You may challenge my argument if you wish, or refuse to accept it, but you will not find any heresy in it.  There is heresy to be found, however, in the argument that bishops with no mission are members of the hierarchy.

Since you are open to the truth, stay on task, and do not resort to sarcasm.  That does not help, and gives the appearance that you do not take these matters seriously.  

You asked me if I am a canon lawyer.   I am not.   I have no official training from the Church.  I am a layman, like yourself.  When I was younger, I was taught by two pre-Vatican II ordained priests, who were deeply concerned about the Church.  They tutored me in Latin, philosophy, and theology.  They both studied in the seminary in the 1950s so I have much to thank them for in taking the time to teach and form me.  

I have also studied for the last 20 years or so the crisis in the Church.   I have bought thousands of old books, on theology, canon law, philosophy, church history, the popes, etc.  

My goal has always been to get to the bottom of this crisis, to understand its nature, and to work to find a way out of it.  

I do see a way out, it is as clear as day to me.  In order to figure this all out, it has been like peeling one layer of an onion off, only to find another layer and so on.  This crisis is a very deep mystery, and it cannot be treated simply.  It's complexity cannot be minimized.  Unfortunately for us, simple judgments and assumptions have ruled much of majority analysis of the crisis, and that has only led us to a dead end.

The Church cannot be reformed by those who lack a mission from God.  It must come from the hierarchy and/or the clergy of Rome.  The hierarchy are the rulers of the Church, and the Roman clergy exist in the one diocese that is guaranteed to not fail.   Neither of these groups can ever completely fall into heresy, and the only the solution to the crisis must come from these men who possess their mission in the Church from God.   It is also possible that God can directly intervene to reform his Church, but even in this case, the continuity of the Church cannot be broken, or it will be a new church, which has replaced the old one.  

SJB has already begun to answer your question, and I appreciate that he has done this.  My time is limited, and looking through volumes takes a lot of time.  I have a very busy day ahead, but I will continue this discussion later.

Quote from: Van Noort, Christ's Church

Scholion 2. Theory of an extraordinary mission.

Since the original Protestants obviously lacked apostolicity of government, they took refuge in an appeal to the theory of an "extraordinary mission." To put it briefly, they maintained that God could at some time raise up a group of men by an extraordinary vocation and confer on them apostolic functions if current apostolic pastors should become viciously corrupt. This was the case, they asserted, with Luther and the other reformers. It is clear, however, if any such extraordinary mission were ever to be granted by God, it would have to be proven by miracles, or other clearly divine trademarks. The plain truth is, however, that Christ's own promises completely rule out the possibility of any such extraordinary mission. Understand now, we are talking about a mission by which a man absolutely apart from and utterly independent of apostolic succession would receive from God the power to rule or reform the Church. Christ conferred sacred powers on His apostles and their successors until the end of the world. Further, He promised them His perpetual and unfailing assistance. Consequently Christ would be contradicting Himself were He ever to deprive the legitimate successors of the apostles of their authority. Granted that fact, it would be a further contradiction for God to confer the same power or a similar power on other men who were not in union with the ordinary successors. In that hypothesis there would be two separate and independent sources of authority, both demanding, by divine right, obedience from the same subjects.

The only thing that could result in such an hypothesis would be confusion and schism in Christ's Church. And in that event, one would imply that God Himself, who willed His Church to be unified, was Himself sowing the seeds of necessary division. From another point of view, God has no need of extraordinary legates, in the sense claimed above, to preserve His Church from corruption.

Apostolicity of membership means that the Church in any given age is and remains numerically the same society as that planted by the apostles.

Quote from: Van Noort, Christ's Church

Scholion 2. Theory of an extraordinary mission.

Since the original Protestants obviously lacked apostolicity of government, they took refuge in an appeal to the theory of an "extraordinary mission." To put it briefly, they maintained that God could at some time raise up a group of men by an extraordinary vocation and confer on them apostolic functions if current apostolic pastors should become viciously corrupt. This was the case, they asserted, with Luther and the other reformers. It is clear, however, if any such extraordinary mission were ever to be granted by God, it would have to be proven by miracles, or other clearly divine trademarks. The plain truth is, however, that Christ's own promises completely rule out the possibility of any such extraordinary mission. Understand now, we are talking about a mission by which a man absolutely apart from and utterly independent of apostolic succession would receive from God the power to rule or reform the Church. Christ conferred sacred powers on His apostles and their successors until the end of the world. Further, He promised them His perpetual and unfailing assistance. Consequently Christ would be contradicting Himself were He ever to deprive the legitimate successors of the apostles of their authority. Granted that fact, it would be a further contradiction for God to confer the same power or a similar power on other men who were not in union with the ordinary successors. In that hypothesis there would be two separate and independent sources of authority, both demanding, by divine right, obedience from the same subjects.

The only thing that could result in such an hypothesis would be confusion and schism in Christ's Church. And in that event, one would imply that God Himself, who willed His Church to be unified, was Himself sowing the seeds of necessary division. From another point of view, God has no need of extraordinary legates, in the sense claimed above, to preserve His Church from corruption.

Apostolicity of membership means that the Church in any given age is and remains numerically the same society as that planted by the apostles.