CathInfo.com

  While I have previously said that John Lane is the most eloquent of the sedevacantist authors, this does not mean he is correct in his position.

   Truth can be poorly argued.

   Error can be eloquently argued.

   But here is where Mr. Lane stumbles, in my opinion:

1) There has never been a case in the history of the Church where a false "Pope" has ruled with universal consent;

2) And without a counter-claimant;

3) Or for such a long duration;

4) Which makes all the sedevacantist writings merely speculative, not practical.

5) Their having no reference point in the history of the Church.

6) And finally, I am not satisfied with Mr Lane's solution to the problems for the visibility of the Church that the sedevacantist thesis creates (i.e., He says there are a sufficient number of validly consecrated traditional bishopss from which the visibility of the Church could be restored).

7) What this solution overlooks is that none of them, even if there were a thousand of them, would have ordinary jurisdiction, and so the official heirarchy would still be dead.

8) Which is impossible

The SSPX like the SVs, if true that our bishops do not have ordinary jurisdiction, are left with the same problem as the SVs.  The alternative is going back to the NO where the "real" "bishops" are.  So I respectfully ask "what exactly is your point?"  God is, in a manner of speaking, is “forcing” the SSPX to pick a side and Fellay has picked the wrong side.  The rest continue to nuance their way out of contradiction, by holding fast to their schismatic attitude, well intentioned, in the beginning, it may have been.

If the SSPX and SV bishop's do not have jurisdiction then the official hierarchy is dead?  This does not undermine the fact that a public heretic, according to the ordinary, and arguably, solemn teaching of the magisterium and Divine Law that a public heretic cannot be Pope.  A hierarchy with supposedly no ordinary jurisdiction brings up an unfortunate result of the fact of going so long without a Pope for the SV, or a “Pope” in name only for the SSPX, but getting rid of the Pope, which the Masons tried and succeeded in doing, so a false Mass and Sacraments can be imputed on the unleery is the natural consequence of no Pope or some man with the title but in effect no authority, if we go by the history of, disobedience, parsing and defiance of the SSPX against this purported head.  

I would argue that the jurisdiction situation has not been officially settled; but that if all the Bishops, SSPX and SV only have supplied jurisdiction I would argue that THEY are the hierarchy in these unfortunate times.

To summarize, the theological fact that a public heretic cannot be Pope, is not undermined by the purported jurisdictional “fact” that being without a Pope for long leads to an unusual situation as not having a Pope itself is an unusual situation.  And having a succession of "Popes" that we disobey and ignore for 50 years is an unusual situation.  To get out of the proper conclusion (a public heretic cannot be Pope) you must explain why the recent claimants are not or were not public heretics or explain who the ordinary magisterium and Divine Law are incorrect in this instance.  Deploring the results and then claiming that those results make the Pope issue go away is convenient but inconclusive argumentation.  It is apples and oranges.  

I have a high esteem for John Lane, yet his position on this point strikes me as frankly quite baffling.

He's said that an invalid Pope can grant ordinary jurisdiction to a Bishop because of common error. And he even believes the new rite is invalid, yet he apparently thinks in some cases jurisdiction is given anyway. Thus his "Bishop in the woods" kind of scenario to maintain the Apostolicity of the Church.

Only a Pope can appoint a pastor to a particular flock and empower him to govern it. No Bishop can grant this power to another because all Bishops receive this power not from Christ directly but only through the mediation of the Supreme Pontiff, as Pope Pius XII teaches.

Now, the situation of the SSPX is completely different. Because the SSPX has never claimed to exercise ordinary jurisdiction, and Archbishop Lefebvre, and to be fair some sedevacantist clergy also, completely understood the principles at work here. But everyone grants that valid episcopal consecration can be performed by Bishops alone, and most agree that in cases of necessity under epikeia it can be lawful as well. But what such episcopal consecration alone can never do - and it would be extremely grave to claim it could do - is by itself also grant the power of jurisdiction, which was once held by certain non-Catholic groups, and explicitly now ruled out by Pope Pius XII.

Now, if Pope Pius XII was the last Pope, there is probably no Bishop today in the whole Church with ordinary jurisdiction. But if the Pope is still the Pope, there remains at least some jurisdiction in the universal Church.

The difference in sum is this - the SSPX operate with supplied jurisdiction for the salvation of souls which is the supreme law of the Church, but if sedevacantism is true, it would mean that there is not a single Bishop in the universal Church with ordinary jurisdiction, which would mean the Catholic Church has ceased to be Apostolic (since jurisdiction is a requirement of Apostolicity) which is impossible.