Quote from: Van Noort

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.

Quote from: LoT

Are you claiming that our Traditional Bishops have and extraordinary mission that Christ would exclude them from having?

Yes, it is addressing protestants, yet the principle remains. We are talking about the power to teach and rule. The power to bind others. Trad bishops have a role, yet it is not and cannot be as a successor to the Apostles. They are not Successors to the Apostles (by definition) and hence they have no power to teach and rule. They provide witness (as do trad laymen) and can provide the sacraments because of their valid orders and because of necessity.

If they actually claim a power to teach and rule, they are like the protestants.

I'm definitely not sure you are wrong.

http://archive.org/stream/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary#page/n373/mode/2up

I wanted to mention the above is an awesome library.  I had been availing myself of it for old theology manuals.  

I will come back with more objections later.  

For now I will say people misinterpret canon law as they do everything else.  Some use canon law to stay at home, and for the topic we are discussing right now.  Some use it to prove a public heretic cannot be Pope, some use to prove he can since no one can judge him.  Same with scripture, all men have sinned.  Same with Dogma, No Salvation outside the Church.

Obviously I am not comparing the claim that our Catholic Bishops do not have formal apostolic succession to feeneyism, as I don't know either way on jurisdiction.  The point is that people misinterpret canon law.  Smart people.  Studied people.  Good people.

If we agree with your interpretation then we must understand that a long interregnum leads to the Church ultimately disintegrating, the stay at homer argument gains merit, our current bishops become no more than sacrament machines, etc.

But do you agree that the retired elderly 1958 Novus Ordo Bishops are the true hierarchy, or do you admit that we do not know who they are?

Do you see my point?

Didn't ancient bishops and religious order bishops not have territory yet were still Apostolic Successors?  

This question needs to be answered yes or no before I agree that canon law undermines the position I pose for scrutiny.  

I'm still looking for a response to the above question. Just in case it got passed over during the discussion.

In the discussion between Ambrose and me, before SJB jumped in (glad he jumped in because he speaks to the issue and adds positive data to the discussion) I was under the impression that Ambrose was attempting to maneuver me into the virtually impossible role of having to "prove" conscious guilt of heresy on the part of the 1958 bishops before they can be excluded from consideration as being some source of "authority" in the Church.

Is this an accurate assessment Ambrose?

If so, I would respond that cannot be necessary, for if it were there could never be any way to know where the Church is as well as where it is not.  It is enough to know that none of them have distinguished themselves as being specifically for the true Church in even the smallest way, meaning, since they are bishops duty bound to defend the faith at the peril of their souls, and their office from 1958 - now demanded/ demands they do it, and not too few had the capability of doing it, they were not mute, and had the ability to write, since that time until now, that their "silence implies consent" with the nonsense going on throughout and by the very nature of the organization to which they still are a part and choose to profit from (in the form of pensions).

I believe it is very important for Ambrose to defend this non-provable premise because he also suggested that these are not the only bishops who would form the hierarchy.  But he has not gotten to that yet because he has not convinced me that the 1958 bishops are the true hierarchy first.  But then who are these other "bishops".  Would it be the Novus Ordo "bishops" who are under 90 - years - old?  Those not validly ordained and "ordained" under a false Pope?  Who else could it be?  I would be very curious about Ambrose's thoughts or conclusion on this topic.  

In the discussion between Ambrose and me, before SJB jumped in (glad he jumped in because he speaks to the issue and adds positive data to the discussion) I was under the impression that Ambrose was attempting to maneuver me into the virtually impossible role of having to "prove" conscious guilt of heresy on the part of the 1958 bishops before they can be excluded from consideration as being some source of "authority" in the Church.

I am not attempting to maneuver you, I am only stating the truth, whether or not you accept it is solely your decision.  

I never said you need to see the conscience of another man.  But, in the absence of authority,  any judgment about whether another a man is a heretic is generally very difficult.  John Daly wrote a good article on this:  http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/judgeheresy.html

If so, I would respond that cannot be necessary, for if it were there could never be any way to know where the Church is as well as where it is not. It is enough to know that none of them have distinguished themselves as being specifically for the true Church in even the smallest way, meaning, since they are bishops duty bound to defend the faith at the peril of their souls, and their office from 1958 - now demanded/ demands they do it, and not too few had the capability of doing it, they were not mute, and had the ability to write, since that time until now, that their "silence implies consent" with the nonsense going on throughout and by the very nature of the organization to which they still are a part and choose to profit from (in the form of pensions).

As I said before, it is a waste of time to discuss whether the bishops are guilty of dereliction of duty.  The only charges that are worth our time are those that lead to the loss of office prior to the judgment of the Church.   The bishops either (1) have kept the Faith, and retain their offices, or (2) have fallen into heresy, schism or apostasy and by that have lost their membership in the Church, and therefore have lost their offices.

I believe it is very important for Ambrose to defend this non-provable premise because he also suggested that these are not the only bishops who would form the hierarchy. But he has not gotten to that yet because he has not convinced me that the 1958 bishops are the true hierarchy first. But then who are these other "bishops". Would it be the Novus Ordo "bishops" who are under 90 - years - old? Those not validly ordained and "ordained" under a false Pope? Who else could it be? I would be very curious about Ambrose's thoughts or conclusion on this topic.

No, I said we can start with the Pius XII bishops.  It is easier to grasp, and I am trying to demonstrate principles that we can first agree on before climbing the ladder to higher things.  

Some of this was already covered on this forum, but maybe you missed it.  A poster named Machabees and myself discussed these issues a while back.  Here was one of my responses to him:

I am speaking about bishops who appear to be adhering the Conciliar church but who in fact remain in the Catholic Church.  Let me put forward some points to explain this more clearly:

1.  The hierarchy of the Catholic Church can never disappear, it must continue to the end of the world.  This is a dogma of our Faith.

2.  The hierarchy consists of the bishops lawfully appointed by a Pope.  This would most certainly consist of the bishops appointed by Pius XII, some of whom are still alive, and possibly the bishops appointed by John XXIII and Paul VI until the date that he publicly professed heresy to the universal Church, December 7, 1965.  

3.  Some argue that these bishops have resigned, but resignation to one who is not a lawful superior has no effect.  

4.  The presumption must be that these bishops have the Faith, until the contrary can be shown by external evidence, not assumptions.  Whichever of these bishops have the Faith, they would still possess their offices, and they would constitute the hierarchy.

5.  The mere adherence to an anti-pope, even one who is a (undeclared) public heretic, does not prove that those who adhere to him are schismatics or heretics, respectively.

6.  In regards to those bishops of the Roman Rite, the saying of the Novus Ordo Missae would not in and of itself be proof of public heresy.  

7.  There is also a good argument, put forward by John Lane that bishops appointed by the anti-popes, who possess the Catholic Faith, and if it were for the common good could be given habitual jurisdiction as the act would be done with supplied jurisdiction which was supplied to the anti-pope for that individual act.  This argument is reasonable, and would substantially increase the numbers of the hierarchy, and I could see this especially in the Eastern Rites.

Let's keep the discussion going here so the full body of work can be seen on one thread:

I maintain that we can only judge external and if the old bishops appear united to the Novus Ordo we judge them as such.  Why do we all of sudden have to read their minds before we can reach a conclusion.  This is the weakest part of your defense.  I believe other SVs who agree with you on jurisdiction do not make the claim about the Novus Ordo clergy as you do as they see the weakness in that argument.  They also see the weakness in the argument that the hierarchy is hidden so they don't try to defend that to much either.  They just shout from the roof-tops that those who kept the faith throughout and are validly consecrated are NOT the true hierarchy.  That is what is perplexing to me.

Everything in the same link.  What follows is from the Four Marks which is the most reputable periodical in the planet.  Why? because it is SV of course and because it is  vetted by Priests, mostly CMRI.

The Mystery of the Hierarchy
   

Where is the Church? That is the question, which I believe lies at the root of much of the confusion faced by real Catholics today. It really comes down to our understanding of the Catholic doctrines of Ecclesiology. Traditional Catholics understand that we “traditionalists” are in fact the remnant Roman Catholic Church. But what of the hierarchy?

    For all too many, the phrase “the hierarchy” is taken to refer to an organization which is currently headed from Vatican City and comprised of “priests” and “bishops” and “pope,” most of whom aren’t even Catholics. They do not worship as Catholics. They do not believe and teach what Catholics must all believe and teach. They do not stand up to be counted as Catholics when the fallen world opposes God’s own Truth and Justice. And yet so many of us real Catholics just unquestioningly think of them as being “the hierarchy.” Why? Are there no alternatives? In fact, there are several.

    I have identified four categories of belief regarding the whereabouts/identity/existence of the Roman Catholic hierarchy today:

1.    Vatican organization retains hierarchical claim,
2.    Hierarchy has utterly vanished,
3.    Phantom (or totally concealed) hierarchy, and
4.    Traditional clergy retain hierarchical claim.

    Let us briefly explore what each of these is about.

1)  Vatican organization retains hierarchical claim:  This alternative forces Catholics to try to reconcile the things done and taught by them with the teachings of the Church. One twists their mind into a pretzel by trying to make the new teachings fit into the old (or the old fit into the new). Or else one twists their mind into a pretzel by trying to figure out how the present Fallibility doesn’t refute the past doctrine of Infallibility.
   
One common approach taken is to fault the individuals concerned. The Church does not err, but individual fallen men do, even churchmen. But that is a dead end. It merely leads one into making accusations. Individuals DO err, and must be held accountable for their errors. But is their error merely their own or is it a result of following official policy? Herein lies the fundamental difference between the Pre-Vatican II and Post-Vatican II hierarchies. The divine spirit of the first is the Holy Ghost, and the demonic spirit of the second is the “spirit of Vatican II.” The first builds Faith; the second destroys it.

    Before Vatican II, the prevailing customs and policies inclined all towards the Faith. The success or failure of any individual cleric in imparting Faith correlated quite closely to the degree to which he abided by those prevailing customs and policies himself. But during and since Vatican II, the customs and polices of the Vatican organization became the reasons for altars to be smashed, rosaries to be ripped, liturgies to be debased, errors to be exalted, and Faith to be lost. Even where some individual Vatican-approved cleric might actually stand up for a worthy Catholic teaching (e. g. Fr. Frank Pavone in the Right-to-Life cause), he does this on his own, with no particular support or blessing from his superiors.

    Clearly, the organization itself is the problem, not merely those in it. That is doctrinally impossible for the Church, yet undeniable with regards to the Vatican organization today. For these grave doctrinal reasons this alternative simply cannot be true. Today’s Vatican organization simply cannot be the real Roman Catholic Church. Yet large numbers of traditional Catholics just seem to assume this alternative to be the case. This category includes not only the “Indult/Motu” crowd, but also the SSPX and other resistance groups, and even many sedevacantists!

2)  Hierarchy has utterly vanished:  There are some who speak as if there really were no bishops with authority. This cannot be reconciled with the Catholic doctrine of Indefectibility of the Church. There are dogmatic reasons to believe that the hierarchal Church shall exist clear up to the time of the actual return of Christ. The only remotely possible exception to that would be in connection with the claim that the return of Christ is immediately imminent. But have those who actually advocate this alternative reflected on just how imminent that End of all Time would have to be? Mere days or weeks at the most. How could one account for this supposedly hierarchy-less period of time having lasted for decades, thus far?

    Yet the scenario one might tolerate for a very brief period has become for some a de facto long-term belief. That amounts to a belief in the total failure of the Church, a doctrinal impossibility. I suspect this is why many have feared to become sedevacantists. They imagine that the sede vacante finding would imply a failure of God to keep His promises regarding the Rock of St. Peter. We really should learn to focus not only on where the Church isn’t, but where the Church is, lest we unintentionally convey the idea that the Church isn’t.

3)  Phantom (or totally concealed) hierarchy: This category includes both those who claim there to be some secretive papal succession, and those who think some bishop from the era of Pope Pius XII might still be alive and keeping the living Magisterium going in his own utterly forgotten corner of the world. This category avoids the doctrinal problems of the first two categories, but then presents the new problem of finding this hidden hierarchy. More seriously, how does one account for their complete undiscoverability, even by its most loyal possible friends?

        Can the Church be regarded as a visible society unless at least one living episcopal officer of it can be identified by name? I don’t see how. It is one thing to say that you or I do not know the answer to that question as we sit here talking about it. Many things like this might simply not be common knowledge. And some bishops have had to function “underground.” But it is quite a different thing for not one to be discoverable by anyone, all around the world. Back in the 1970’s most Catholics vaguely knew that there was some such faithful bishop truly keeping his diocese Catholic, perhaps somewhere in South America. It couldn’t have taken too much asking around to find out that the bishop in question was Bp. Antonio de Castro-Meyer of the diocese of Campos, Brazil. But no amount of asking around or digging can point any of us to such a bishop today.

    The City on the Hill may be camouflaged, but never truly hidden. At least some of its light must always shine through even the thickest fog. Even if some dire threat could seemingly force them to conceal their existence as a hidden papal succession somewhere, how is it that not even the name taken by any current secretly reigning pontiff has ever been let slip out? Could any “Pope Gregory XVII” still be alive after all these years? Yet no successor is named. Surely if such a pope existed, he would have wanted to enable all faithful clergy to be able to express their union with Peter by naming him in the Canon of the Mass, etc. And after all, that really wouldn’t reveal anything useful for anyone trying to threaten him. And what threat could be so dire as to warrant abandoning the remainder of the whole Church all around the world to careless and heretical pastors all alike without authority or authoritativeness in the Gospel [as they could be in this scenario]? Not even the detonation of a nuclear bomb under the Holy City could do as much damage as has been done by the enactment of Vatican II.

    The apostolic mission of the Church continues to be the conversion of the world. Therefore, they cannot all be content to remain hidden in whatever corner of the earth they presently occupy, showing no concern for all the rest of us. How would one account for their universal refusal or inability to continue the Church’s mission to preach the Gospel to all creation and baptize the nations in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost? For if only any one or more of them did, we the Faithful could find them. Indeed, it is they who should be seeking us out, not the other way around, for the Lord is ever anxious to gather His sheep. While one could posit that some few might be stranded on desert islands or trapped in gulags or solitary confinement, how is it that not one has been released over all these many years, as the angel freed Peter and company from prison (Acts 5:17-25)? Does God no longer watch over His own Church?

4)  Traditional clergy retain hierarchical claim:  This category, my own position, is that the obviously traditional Catholic priests and bishops simply are the Roman Catholic hierarchy as it exists today, despite their not having been personally appointed by a pope. I realize that this position raises a couple questions as to the exact canonical mechanism of their authority in the Church and how they are meant to function together today. But, unlike the other three alternatives, the problems raised by this alternative are only disciplinary, not doctrinal. Let’s look at what this alternative solves:

    We who recognize our traditional clergy as the hierarchy alone have an institutional and historic and unchanging Church that we can point to. That Church, our Church, has continuously existed, from ancient times until now, unchanging in any of Her doctrines or liturgies. Our Church has, and has always had, identifiable ministers who can be contacted for membership and for all the sacraments, teaching, and guidance the Church has ever offered. The clergy so identified have never taught heresy but have always and consistently opposed the radical errors of the Novus Ordo religion. In this alternative, the Church fully evidences Her retention of Her Divinely appointed prerogatives and apostolic mission.

    It is much easier to explain how, in the midst of a lengthy papal vacancy, the episcopal succession can proceed officially without direct papal appointments, than it is to explain how the Church could contradict Herself, teach error, or disappear. This alternative is a big reprieve for those who have long agonized over the evident fall of the Vatican organization, thinking it to be the Church. It is the perfect antidote to those who charge that sedevacantism is merely some inexplicable negative finding that seems to deny the practical existence of the Church.

    With our traditional clerics duly recognized as the Teaching Church and the Vatican heretics as mere sectarians visibly outside the Church, one need not reconcile the Modernist ecuмenism with the teaching that there is only one true God and one true Church. One need not reconcile the indefectibility of the Church with the evident defection of the Vatican organization during and since Vatican II. One need not go sifting through the teachings of any putative “pope” whom we cannot rely upon to be a valid point of reference for our Faith. And one need not judge the man who leads the Modernist sect.

    In the context of this view, it clear that we traditional Catholics, together with our clerical leaders, are not on the sidelines but straight front and center responsible for the state and future of the Church. It means that we — together with, and under the guidance of, our traditional Catholic priests and bishops — can and must continue the apostolic mission that our Lord Jesus Christ imparted to our forebears to preach the Gospel to every creature, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, confident in God’s Divine help, and in our ability and authority to do so.

LoT wrote:

I'm not sure if you all are in agreement that the 1958 Bishops who are in the Novus Ordo Church are part of the hierarchy or not. They are obliged to defend the faith. They know better than all of us the errors taught and the non-Catholic disciplines bound on their Church but they have not said anything or physically left and ministered to those in need for all these decades. I can't accept they are the hierarchy and I do not see why I should.

The reason why you must accept these men as the hierarchy is because Catholic theology and canon law both irrefutably demonstrate that the bishops who have a mission and leave not lost their offices, retain their office.

All of your other concerns could demonstrate a charge of dereliction of duty, and they will have to answer oft that, but as I said before dereliction of duty does not cause an ipso facto loss of office.

I was particularly troubled by your last sentence.  You said you are open to the truth on this and are undecided, but that sentence certainly is a judgment on your part and indicates that you have made up your mind.

Is this the only "hole" you see in Griff's presentation, that he does not accept the 1958 bishops in the NO?

No, this is not the only "hole."    You are using vague terminology in your question, by using the words, "in the NO (Novus Ordo).

One is either a Catholic or they are not.  If a Catholic mistakes a sect for the Church, and is not aware that he is not in a sect then he is not a schismatic.  Likewise, if the same Catholic in that situation does not profess any heresy, then he is not a heretic.