Quote from: Lover of Truth

Good post.  Nothing to dispute there.  Of course now like interregnums of old this does not mean that the Bishops united to Eternal Rome that were consecrated during such times were invalid.

Or even that they had no jurisdiction.  If, for instance, the Popes have always allowed Patriarchal Eastern Rites the ability to appoint Bishops (reserving only a kindof veto power after the fact to the Pope), then why wouldn't that permission be deemed to continue in a sedevacante period?  I know this is New Code of Canon Law, but the 1990 Canon Law of the Eastern Churches expressly states that the Patriarchal Eastern Churches have the authority to appoint their own Bishops without explicit papal mandate.  Even though this was codified in 1990, I believe that this has long been the case.

Correct.  Valid in the full sense of the word.

Good explanation by Rev. Smith.

Dear Clemens Maria, you and I have discussed this before, and I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I have given you some sources and the reasons for my perspective, each of us must make the best judgment we can, guided by prayer and study.

I'm not sure what the point of your questions is, since secular democracies and the Catholic Church have an entirely different hierarchical constitution. Let me answer the point about where canonical mission and ordinary jurisdiction are mentioned in Sacred Scripture.

Jesus gives the Keys to St. Peter, and explains the power to bind and loose in Mat 16:15-18. Theologians explain this is the power of jurisdiction. Our Lord shows it includes the power to excommunicate in Mat 18:17-18. Likewise, in Jn 20, the Lord connects the power to forgive sin with the mission He gives them, telling them that He sends them as the Father sent Him. St. Paul asks, How shall they preach, except they be sent? Already in the Old Testament, God had spoken in a similar way concerning those whom He had indeed sent and had not. The Church teaches that there will always be shepherds and teachers who were sent just as the Apostles were sent. Theologians understand this of the mission from the Pope, the means through which an individual receives the ordinary power of jurisdiction. We've seen the texts before,

"Rome was, more evidently than ever, the sole source of pastoral power. We, then, both priests and people have a right to know from whose hand our pastors have recived their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? ... If they claim our obedience without having been sent by the bishop of Rome ... they have not been sent, they are not pastors ... He moreover willed that the spiritual power exercised by Her pastors should come from a visible source. Our Lord (we say it reverently) owed this to us."

Succession may be material or formal. Material succession consists in the fact that there have never been lacking persons who have continuously been substituted for the Apostles ; 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.

I've explained the matter over which we differ before - the acceptance of the Conciliar Popes by the Church proves that they are not heretics, at least not public and formal heretics, because such acceptance is, as Wernz Vidal put it, "a sign and infallible effect of a valid election." This acceptance by the ecclesia docens proves infallibly the fulfilment of all conditions required for the validity of the election. The Society has mentioned this in its articles in the past, for example Fr. Boulet made reference to it, citing Cardinal Billot, in the article on sedevacantism. Beside this, the Society has mentioned the canon on perpetual successors and the problem with no bishop having ordinary jurisdiction.

I've explained the matter over which we differ before - the acceptance of the Conciliar Popes by the Church proves that they are not heretics, at least not public and formal heretics, because such acceptance is, as Wernz Vidal put it, "a sign and infallible effect of a valid election."

But Nishant, you fail to address the contradiction.  Why can't the bishops of the Church universally accept a false pope?  Due to the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church.  Yet these same bishops who due to their collective infallibility cannot accept a false pope CAN at the same time, despite the same infallibility, teach error to the Church???  That's a contradiction, so there's something wrong with the principle or your application thereof.

I've explained the matter over which we differ before - the acceptance of the Conciliar Popes by the Church proves that they are not heretics, at least not public and formal heretics, because such acceptance is, as Wernz Vidal put it, "a sign and infallible effect of a valid election." This acceptance by the ecclesia docens proves infallibly the fulfilment of all conditions required for the validity of the election. The Society has mentioned this in its articles in the past, for example Fr. Boulet made reference to it, citing Cardinal Billot, in the article on sedevacantism. Beside this, the Society has mentioned the canon on perpetual successors and the problem with no bishop having ordinary jurisdiction.

So if I study at a Catholic seminary for 10+ years and then conclude that there is no Catholic God and then publish my conclusion for all to see, I am not a formal heretic?  Are you serious?!!!

Can I claim that the Old Covenant is not revoked and continues to be a means of salvation for the Jews?  Is that not a heresy?  Do you think after studying many years at the seminary (pre-V2) I still would not know that the Church condemns that proposition?  

By the way, the Church does not accept the Conciliar popes.  The Conciliar Church accepts the Conciliar popes.  The Catholic Church does not.  The R&R Catholics reject them for all intents and purposes and the SV Catholics reject them explicitly and unambiguously.

I'm glad that you are finally addressing this issue Nishant.

Quote from: SJB

Maybe so, yet NO trad bishop suggests he has been appointed by anybody or holds any office with jurisdiction.

Well, a couple used to.  But that's beside the point.  What's at issue here is the continuity of jurisdiction under sedevacante.  Are you saying that the Eastern Bishops are all heretics also?

No.

I believe Bishops Andrew Jacobs, Joseph Belzak, Giles Butler and Bonaventure Strandt all do.

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Good post.  Nothing to dispute there.  Of course now like interregnums of old this does not mean that the Bishops united to Eternal Rome that were consecrated during such times were invalid.

Or even that they had no jurisdiction.  If, for instance, the Popes have always allowed Patriarchal Eastern Rites the ability to appoint Bishops (reserving only a kindof veto power after the fact to the Pope), then why wouldn't that permission be deemed to continue in a sedevacante period?  I know this is New Code of Canon Law, but the 1990 Canon Law of the Eastern Churches expressly states that the Patriarchal Eastern Churches have the authority to appoint their own Bishops without explicit papal mandate.  Even though this was codified in 1990, I believe that this has long been the case.

Maybe so, yet NO trad bishop suggests he has been appointed by anybody or holds any office with jurisdiction.

Who do they claim appointed them and to what See?

Quote from: obediens

I believe Bishops Andrew Jacobs, Joseph Belzak, Giles Butler and Bonaventure Strandt all do.

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Good post.  Nothing to dispute there.  Of course now like interregnums of old this does not mean that the Bishops united to Eternal Rome that were consecrated during such times were invalid.

Or even that they had no jurisdiction.  If, for instance, the Popes have always allowed Patriarchal Eastern Rites the ability to appoint Bishops (reserving only a kindof veto power after the fact to the Pope), then why wouldn't that permission be deemed to continue in a sedevacante period?  I know this is New Code of Canon Law, but the 1990 Canon Law of the Eastern Churches expressly states that the Patriarchal Eastern Churches have the authority to appoint their own Bishops without explicit papal mandate.  Even though this was codified in 1990, I believe that this has long been the case.

Maybe so, yet NO trad bishop suggests he has been appointed by anybody or holds any office with jurisdiction.

The lines of Thuc, Lefebvre, Mayer and Mendez continued, they had the mandate and passed it on to those united to the Apostolic See with jurisdiction over their flocks vacated by apostate heretics.  IMO of course, which really is not worth much in the technical theological zone.  People keep looking to the Novus Ordo dioceses that have disappeared but their flocks/souls remain.  Thuc, Lefebvre, Mayer, Mendez and their apostolic successors continued the Church, they did not leave it or disobey a Pope or become schismatic in any way.  They continued the Apostolic Succession as was done during past interregnums.  The mandate, until the contrary is proven, is tacit as it was during past interregnums.  

Now that I have definitively settled that let's move on to something else shall we.  I'm glad we are all in agreement here.   :cheers:

They are NOT successors to the Apostles by definition.