Author Topic: Ordinary Jurisdiction (Read 9785 times)

Nishant · « **Reply #15 on:** September 11, 2012, 11:19:27 AM »

Quote

It says the power of jurisdiction of the bishops is "complete in its own kind". It goes on to clarify that the power of jurisdiction is subordinate to the "power" of the the Supreme Pontiff. None of us would deny that their power of jurisdiction, which they receive by Divne right is not subordinate to the power of the the Supreme Pontiff, or the office of the Papacy, when there is no actual Pope.

Um, the power of jurisdiction flows to the Bishops only, as Pope Pius XII taught, from the person of the Pope, not from the empty seat. It is required, as Msgr.Journet says, that the power of the Papacy be possessed in act by someone for new manifestations of the general life of the Church in her ministers.

Quote

We must not think of the Church, when the Pope is dead, as possessing the papal power in act, in a state of diffusion, so that she herself can delegate it to the next Pope in whom it will be re-condensed and made definite. When the Pope dies the Church is widowed, and, in respect of the visible universal jurisdiction, she is truly acephalous. [896]

But she is not acephalous as are the schismatic Churches, nor like a body on the way to decomposition. Christ directs her from heaven. There is no one left then on earth who can visibly exercise the supreme spiritual jurisdiction in His name, and, in consequence, any new manifestations of the general life of the Church are prevented. But, though slowed down, the pulse of life has not left the Church; she possesses the power of the Papacy in potency, in the sense that Christ, who has willed her always to depend on a visible pastor, has given her power to designate the man to whom He will Himself commit the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, as once He committed them to Peter. [897]

896During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, says Cajetan, the universal Church is in an imperfect state, she is like an amputated body, not an integral body. “ The Church is acephalous, deprived of her highest part and power. Whoever contests that falls into the error of John Hus -- who denied the need of a visible ruler for the Church -- condemned in advance by St. Thomas, then by Martin V at the Council of Constance. And to say that the Church in this state holds her power immediately from Christ and that the General Council represents her, is to err intolerably “ (De Comparatione etc, cap. vi, 74)

Here are the seventh and twenty-seventh propositions of John Hus condemned at the Council of Constance: “ Peter neither is nor ever was the head of the Holy Catholic Church “; “ There is nothing whatever to show that the spiritual order demands a head who shall continue to live and endure with the Church Militant “ (Denz. 633 and 653)

897See Excursus VI, on the election of the Pope.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #16 on:** September 11, 2012, 11:28:32 AM »

Quote from: Hobbledehoy

Quote
It states that it is theologicaly certain that Bishops obtain ordinary jurisdiction by Divine right. This jurisdiction is necessary for "the perfect society" which is the Church. The possess this jurisdiction "by themselves and through themselves" as "true shepherds of the flock". The possess this power by "divine right" because their office was not "established by the Church but by God".

Please read carefully the following:

Quote
It goes on to say that they receive their jurisdiction "directly from the Supreme Pontiff". But does that contradict all that was said before. I think not. I believe it is an apparrent contradiction to the unschooled.

You don't understand how theologically erroneous the conclusion that Mr. Ruby derives from Msgr. Van Noort is, and how perilous the ramifications of such errors may be.

Mr. Ruby should consult the CMRI Fathers and Mr. Lane and submit his theses to their review, if he believes that his opinions do not contradict the teachings of the theologians.

Quote
I ask those who believe that our Catholic (traditional) Bishops are not Apostolic, where do I find the Catholic Church?

Again and again, it has been explained to you that it is formal Apostolicity that is in question. The acephalous clerics have material Apostolicity and licit apostolates by reason of epikeia, which is untrue for the clerics of the Oriental schismatics who have material Apostolicity but their ministries are odious by reason of the fact that they have broken communion with the Apostolic See. The clergy of the traditional resistance do not undermine the authority of the Roman Pontiff, but are in expectation of a successor of St. Peter who will crush modernism and bring about the liberty and exaltation of Holy Mother Church. It shall be this Pope who shall confer formal Apostolicity upon the clerics, contingent upon his judgment regarding individual clerics.

No one has the authority, however, to presume he has the capacity to usurp the authority of the Apostolic See and "anticipate" this juridical act.

It is theologically erroneous to say that the clergy of the anti-modernist resistance are formal successors of the Apostles and that they posses ordinary jurisdiction. The principles of the Sacred Canons are still in force and the Church is indeed a perfect society, but it is now acephalous (according to the sedevacantists) and the clerics act exercise the supplied jurisdiction that is given them by the Church but which they cannot claim to posses habitually or by means of delegation.

Quote
I'm am sincerely trying to find out where the Apostolic Church is if not in our visible Catholic (traditional) bishops.

You have not read carefully enough the answers given you by others such as SJB and Nishant: you have to read and understand these things carefully first before you begin asking such a question.

Apostolicity is one of the four notes of the Church of Christ: there is also unity, sanctity and catholicity. You must have all four notes together, or else you cannot have the Church of Christ.

Dear Hobbledehoy,

Thank you for your patient response. I actually have not noticed the response regarding material apostolicity. But it still does not sit well with me because that is no better than what the schismatics have.

Are the tradtitional bishops One, Holy and Catholic in the proper understanding of the term?

Is there any formal Apostolicity to be found? If so where? If not, does that put us in a pretty bad state?

Is there such thing a material Oneness, Holiness and Catholicness as pertaining to the four marks of the Catholic Church. It is sad that we have to consider such things.

Many speak of us being headless, and rightfully so in a visible sense, but we do have a head who is Jesus Christ and the Triune Godhead.

These are lofty things which, as in another post of yours, we need to have a good interior life in order to have a hope to firmly grasp, properly understand with all the distinctions regarding how things play out when their is an actual Pope to look to and when there is not.

The above says they must be adopted by the "authority" of the Pope. Which again is different than saying the Church cannot continue if there is no Pope. But this was the point that Nischant was trying to make, I thought, that a long interregnum is not possible because that would mean there would be no more apostolicity. He claimed the NO bishops were valid and I suppose suggested they would be the apostolic ones. But I highly doubt, based upon my interpretation of Church teaching that there is a limit on the length of an interregnum so I am not sure I should pay close attention to all the Nischant says because we start from different premises that cannot be reconciled. Either there is either a specific length limit to interregnums or there is not. I say there is not, because that is what the Church teaches.

So perhaps Nichant has learned something, which would be that a long interregnum would not end apostolicity, or force us to look to the NO for it, as, supposing your interpretation is correct, material apostolicity would still exist in the Catholic (traditional) bishops.

But this material apostolicity among authentically Catholic (orthodox with a small "o", traditional) bishops seems novel. It applies to the schismatic Orthodox, but I have never heard it applying to authentically Catholic Bishops who are not opposed to the Papacy in the slightest.

Very Respectfully in Christ,
and His Most Holy Mother,
John

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #17 on:** September 11, 2012, 11:58:54 AM »

I thought this might be of interest. It shows the answers to such questions are not patently obvious. I am only familiar with Bishop McKenna who wrote the following as Father McKenna in 1982. Some of the others I 've heard about but do not know much about:

Letter of Fr. McKennaOctober 8, 1982Dear Fathers,I have resolved my longstanding doubt concerning the Apostolic succession in thenew bishops - the doubt occasioned by St. Robert Bellarmine's proving the necessity of papal appointment for its existence in a bishop. I could not see how epekeia itself couldsatisfy for the want of papal appointment, though clearly it can for the lack of three co-consecrators (the second element in Apostolic succession according to St. Robert'steaching). If epekeia be tantamount to presumed permission, I could not understand howone can very well - despite whatever extraordinary circuмstances - presume anappointment to an office! Permissions seemed one thing, appointments or missions another.

But it now appears to me that a presumed appointment does not really ormaterially differ from a canonical appointment. Appointment to the episcopacy on thepart of the pope amounts to permission, for consecration on the part of the one appointed.Similarly the same Apostolic See's authorization or delegation for a bishop to consecrateanother seems necessarily, under another aspect, to be permission to do so. If, therefore,epekeia amounts to presumed permission, then since the difference between presumedand explicit appointment is only a logical and not a real distinction, the necessity of papalappointment to the episcopacy seems to admit of epekeia after all. That is to say that theconditions for epekeia otherwise being present, such appointment can be legitimatelypresumed and, for being legitimate, carries with it Apostolic succession. Bellarmine'steaching on Apostolic succession does not seem to preclude the possibility of epekeia as I first believed.

What I originally said, then, about epekeia at the priests meetings sponsored bythe ORCM last Easter still holds good in my estimation in the consecrations by (orstemming from Archbishop Thuc we have not schism but epekeia. And this being avirtue, as St. Thomas shows, not to use it when called for is a sin - a mortal sin accordingto one of the Thomistic commentators Francisco Vittorio. Does not the very fact that we 5are otherwise in sight of the end of Apostolic succession no undoubtedly valid bishopsordained under the new rites in years - itself constitute a sign that epekeia is possible andcalled for in the ordaining of orthodox bishops with the traditional rite? Unless wesuppose that the world is to end (and the Church with it) with the death of the last pre-Vatican II bishop, then how else are we to suppose the Church's indefectibility? TheChurch, St. Robert says, cannot exist without bishops, but even if we suppose the epekeiaargument to be not conclusive but only "probable", as they say, it at least affords groundsfor the "probable doubt" in Canon 209, which itself occasions supplied jurisdiction. Sothe new bishops otherwise being validly ordained, they thus seem to have at least"supplied" jurisdiction from the Church and the Apostolic lineage or succession it implies.

The only practical question I see is the limits of their jurisdiction. '.,without a (orthe) pope to determine the subjects of their jurisdiction, is anyone bound to consult orobey them?' Not that I am suggesting they be ignored should not every good Catholic andwe Priests especially seek the security of obedience to a prelate? but the choice of abishop and one's subjection to him would seem to be voluntary. Maybe some of you havesome light or suggestions on the matter.

I am not presenting myself as a guide for fellow priests but only offering my ownopinions) for what it's worth. We so desperately need to communicate for the sake of unity. Indeed my hope is that if I am mistaken in my reasoning, one of you may do methe favor of setting me straight. Logic I can "live with" - only spare me vituperation:

Fraternally,Robert McKenna, O.P.P.S.

Even supposing the falsity of what I have written above, the new bishopscannot, without rash judgment, be accused of formal schism - no more than were theCatholic bishops in the time of the Arian heresy, deceived by theological subtlety, guiltyof formal heresy, as Bellarmine notes. Consider them in error if you will, but mere"material" schism has no excommunication attached to it. We should note too that what Ihave said here concerning their legitimacy or Apostolic succession has nothing to do withthe other problem of the Sede vacante.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16249660/Why-Not-Wait-for-the-Traditional-Bishops-to-Elect-a-Pope

Hobbledehoy, can you explain, why it is impossible or imprudent for us to elect a Pope? I know the Church teaches that the Church can always provide a visible head for herself, yet it seems that our clergy, while admitting this fact, say we cannot do so right now.

I have not seen the reason why we cannot do so right now though. Can you point me in the right direction?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #18 on:** September 11, 2012, 12:06:07 PM »

Quote

The novelties of the modernists do not warrant the invention of novelties of our own making as a reaction to the crisis that presently afflicts Holy Mother Church.

What the Church must have it must have Hobbles.

If it requires bishops at all times who are not manifest heretics, it must have them.

If those bishops must have apostolic succession and ordinary jurisdiction, they must have it.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #19 on:** September 11, 2012, 12:43:43 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote
The novelties of the modernists do not warrant the invention of novelties of our own making as a reaction to the crisis that presently afflicts Holy Mother Church.

What the Church must have it must have Hobbles.

If it requires bishops at all times who are not manifest heretics, it must have them.

If those bishops must have apostolic succession and ordinary jurisdiction, they must have it.

I agree Telesphorus. Well put.

Here is a response from a friend to a previous objections. Hobbles gave me a respectful response. I want to make sure it is understood that my sharing this is not meant as a disrespectful response. But it does make the point.

Being left with a "material" but not formal Church or apostolicity, leaves me uneasy. I think we can disagree on our interpretation of lofty doctrines during these times and circuмstances. Though I am not sure I disagree with anything, I'm not sure what to think.

Here is that response again:

I'll put it in the next post, after just re-reading it, I should have the quote to what is being responded to.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #20 on:** September 11, 2012, 12:49:30 PM »

This is in response as to where I can find the Apostolic Church if not with our traditional bishops. I have since read that the response is that we still have a materially apostolic Church. But the response below still seems valid. I do not think it is meant to be disrespectful but to drive home a point, much in the same way Jerome would drive home a point against Helvidius and his teaching that our Lady was not a virgin.

Quote

You have not read carefully enough the answers given you by others such as SJB and Nishant: you have to read and understand these things carefully first before you begin asking such a question.

Here is a reply from a friend:

No, everyone who desires to be saved has the duty, whether they realize it or not, to find the Church and join it. Even though those trapped in prisons or on desert islands may well be excused from having to connect up with the Church owing to their particular isolation, for that to be the case for all of us all around the world who are not so trapped is an admission that the Church no longer exists. Since when are all the seeking souls of all history to be obliged to “read carefully enough the answers given you by others such as SJB and Nishant” before even being permitted to ask that ever so basic and essential question?

“My family and I are hungry and we need food. Where can I find some food, or what must I do to get it?”

“Who do you think you are? How dare you ask that question? You need to be fully conversant on SJB’s and Nishant’s entire orbita dicta on the price of tea in China and coffee beans in Brazil before you can even think of having any permission to ask where or how to find food!”

---
You can tell this is not my response because I would not use the term "orbita dicta".

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #21 on:** September 11, 2012, 01:36:20 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote
The novelties of the modernists do not warrant the invention of novelties of our own making as a reaction to the crisis that presently afflicts Holy Mother Church.

What the Church must have it must have Hobbles.

If it requires bishops at all times who are not manifest heretics, it must have them.

If those bishops must have apostolic succession and ordinary jurisdiction, they must have it.

No you are wrong, Telesphorus: supplied jurisdiction suffices for those acts that are necessary for the welfare of the faithful during the vacancy of the Holy See. To say that formal Apostolic Succession and ordinary jurisdiction must exist because of the present day crisis greatly marginalizes the paramount importance, not to mention the very primacy of the Sovereign Pontiff. To posit such a thing would be tantamount to re-structuring the Church of Christ so as to make what is happening a sort of "normalcy" -- this is not an option, because things are not supposed to be the way they are.

The errors and aberrations of the Johannine-Pauline anti-Church do not vindicate a novel ecclesiology that entails an ironic retrogression to the outdated theories of theologians who wrote before the definitive pronouncements of Pope Pius XII, as explained above by Msgr. Van Noort, or, worse, to the adoption of condemned theories of the Gallicanists and Jansenists.

The authority of the Roman Pontiff is indispensable for formal Apostolic succession and for the formal approval of the canonical delegation of ordinary jurisdiction to the Bishops whereby they may rule their respective dioceses.

Both sedevacantists and non-sedevacantists err in saying that the acephalous and vagrant bishops of the anti-modernist resistance can claim formal Apostolic succession and the possession and exercise of ordinary jurisdiction, habitual or delegated. This is merely a statement of fact, and it is not a matter of dispute.

To pertinaciously adhere to such an error would essentially vindicate the anti-traditionalists who condemn all the faithful who resist the modernists of the Johannine-Pauline structures as having formed a "separate church" rather than endeavoring to keep integral and inviolate the divine constitution of the Church as Christ Himself established it.

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #22 on:** September 11, 2012, 01:55:20 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I actually have not noticed the response regarding material apostolicity. But it still does not sit well with me because that is no better than what the schismatics have.

I reiterate: Again and again, it has been explained to you that it is formal Apostolicity that is in question. The acephalous clerics have material Apostolicity and licit apostolates by reason of epikeia, which is untrue for the clerics of the Oriental schismatics who have material Apostolicity but their ministries are odious by reason of the fact that they have broken communion with the Apostolic See. The clergy of the traditional resistance do not undermine the authority of the Roman Pontiff, but are in expectation of a successor of St. Peter who will crush modernism and bring about the liberty and exaltation of Holy Mother Church. It shall be this Pope who shall confer formal Apostolicity upon the clerics, contingent upon his judgment regarding individual clerics.

Quote

Are the tradtitional bishops One, Holy and Catholic in the proper understanding of the term?

Yes, of course, they are part of the Church of Christ, which is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. However, the conglomerate of these Bishops is not to be taken as being the only thing that alone can be categorically co-equated to and identified with the Church of Christ.

The Church supplies them the jurisdiction necessary for them to carry out the offices of their sacred state decorously and competently, whilst retraining them from arrogating to themselves authority and prerogatives that they cannot claim without the sanction of the Sovereign Pontiff.

Quote

Is there any formal Apostolicity to be found? If so where?

Yes there is, but I do not know where it is to be found. As Mr. Lane has said, "it is the great ecclesiological mystery" of our day.

At Bellarmine Forums, this issues has been thoroughly discussed:

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1290

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1244

Quote

But this material apostolicity among authentically Catholic (orthodox with a small "o", traditional) bishops seems novel. It applies to the schismatic Orthodox, but I have never heard it applying to authentically Catholic Bishops who are not opposed to the Papacy in the slightest.

That is precisely the tragedy of our days. The error that ascribes to the acephalous bishops formal Apostolicity and ordinary jurisdiction makes the application of material Apostolicity to them necessary, lest the faithful lose the true notion of Apostolic succession and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. It is also necessitated by the attacks of the anti-traditionalist polemicist who have accused traditional Catholics of making a "Pope-less church" by having a full functioning hierarchy without a Roman Pontiff sanctioning it.

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #23 on:** September 11, 2012, 01:59:10 PM »

On Bellarmine Forums, Mr. Lane posted the following:

Quote

Theological truths.

1. All of the words and actions of Paul VI which suggested that the truth was no longer being imposed as a law, gave concrete expression to his heretical idea that the truth may only recommend itself, and must not be enforced in any way by authority. Dignitatis Humanae expressed this succinctly: “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.” This heresy was also taught by the Synod of Pistoia, and condemned by Pope Pius VI, in his Constitution, Auctorum fidei: “The proposition affirming, ‘that it would be a misuse of the authority of the Church, when she transfers that authority beyond the limits of doctrine and of morals, and extends it to exterior matters, and demands by force that which depends on persuasion and love’; and then also, ‘that it pertains to it much less, to demand by force exterior obedience to its decrees’; in so far as by those undefined words, ‘extends to exterior matters,’ the proposition censures as an abuse of the authority of the Church the use of its power received from God, which the apostles themselves used in establishing and sanctioning exterior discipline – heretical.”

And also: “In that part in which the proposition insinuates that the Church ‘does not have authority to demand obedience to its decrees otherwise than by means which depend on persuasion; in so far as it intends that the Church has not conferred on it by God the power, not only of directing by counsel and persuasion, but also of ordering by laws, and of constraining and forcing the inconstant and stubborn by exterior judgment and salutary punishments’ leading toward a system condemned elsewhere as heretical.”

2. The entire hierarchy cannot teach error. That is, the ordinary, universal magisterium, is infallible.

3. The entire hierarchy cannot cease to exist in act. Not all of the bishops can leave the Church, nor can all of them die, so as to leave none remaining.

4. The Church is indefectible. That is, she must continue to exist at every moment in time, with the same essential features she was given by our Lord when He founded her.

5. The Church is a visible unity. This unity is threefold - two external bonds, of faith and charity, and one principle of unity, her hierarchy united under the Roman Pontiff.

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #24 on:** September 11, 2012, 02:11:11 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I have since read that the response is that we still have a materially apostolic Church.

I never said this.

I never claimed that we have merely "a materially apostolic Church" -- such a thing would be absurd, and it implies that the acephalous and vagrant clerics constitute the Ecclesia docens properly speaking, and that union with them is necessary for one to be incorporated unto the Mystical Body of Christ and be a member of the Church of Christ.

Quote

But the response below still seems valid. I do not think it is meant to be disrespectful but to drive home a point, much in the same way Jerome would drive home a point against Helvidius and his teaching that our Lady was not a virgin.

The acerbic response you cite and your reactions to what I have written tell me that apparently you missed the point which I was endeavoring to make: you have to read carefully what has been discussed and brought to your attention before you go on and ask this primal and mysterious question, to which no one can claim to have the absolute, clear answer.

The reason why I say this, is because you need to clarify the notions of Apostolicity and jurisdiction so that you may ask this great question in a more efficient and clear manner.

No one has all the answers: I certainly don't. All I can do is cite the approved theologians of the Church: sharing notes, that is all I am doing, and all I intend in doing. I am nothing, and have no authority or competence: the tomes and principles that I cite, these are not mine and have an authority of their own force.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #25 on:** September 11, 2012, 02:37:56 PM »

Hobbledehoy,

We are getting somewhere now. I do have a bad habbit of skimming through these forums. These things that have been repeated I have not even noticed once because I have not read them.

I apologize for that.

"insisting that we have a fully functioning heiarchy without a Pope".

Hmm. Never thought about it that way much as I have never thought of a material apostolicity. It gives me pause.

I guess I am not sure what to think because there is no clear answer.

I know in my debate with Nischant on there being no proscibed lenght of interregnums and his seeming insistance that SV means the Apostolicity of the Church would be destroyed through me off.

I believe neither of us would inist that the formal apostolicity is found in the NO or the woods. But, based on your interpratation of things we have to admit we do not have the answer. That could be correct. I have no idea. But at least I am hearing objections I was not previously familiar with.

Thanks again for your patience.

I was right to bristle at the thought of no or N.O. Apostolic Bishops, or invisible apostolic Bishops. No?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #26 on:** September 11, 2012, 02:42:04 PM »

Quote from: Hobbledehoy

Quote from: Lover of Truth
I have since read that the response is that we still have a materially apostolic Church.

I never said this.

I never claimed that we have merely "a materially apostolic Church" -- such a thing would be absurd, and it implies that the acephalous and vagrant clerics constitute the Ecclesia docens properly speaking, and that union with them is necessary for one to be incorporated unto the Mystical Body of Christ and be a member of the Church of Christ.

Quote
But the response below still seems valid. I do not think it is meant to be disrespectful but to drive home a point, much in the same way Jerome would drive home a point against Helvidius and his teaching that our Lady was not a virgin.

The acerbic response you cite and your reactions to what I have written tell me that apparently you missed the point which I was endeavoring to make: you have to read carefully what has been discussed and brought to your attention before you go on and ask this primal and mysterious question, to which no one can claim to have the absolute, clear answer.

The reason why I say this, is because you need to clarify the notions of Apostolicity and jurisdiction so that you may ask this great question in a more efficient and clear manner.

No one has all the answers: I certainly don't. All I can do is cite the approved theologians of the Church: sharing notes, that is all I am doing, and all I intend in doing. I am nothing, and have no authority or competence: the tomes and principles that I cite, these are not mine and have an authority of their own force.

You do have some competence in my opinion.

brotherfrancis75 · « **Reply #27 on:** September 11, 2012, 03:11:14 PM »

My good Brothers-in-Christ,

Today I lack the leisure to respond to this exceptionally relevant thread. But as soon as I am able I will put in my "two cents."

I also can make ABSOLUTELY no pretense of infallibility and must admit at the outset that Mr. Hobbles is clearly more knowledgeable of the theological literature than the rest of us, including myself.

My effort will be a humble attempt in defense of Rochester, New York and my fellow Franciscans there. (I don't belong to their specific Franciscan community, but I am nevertheless a fellow traditional Franciscan with them.)

In most humble gratitude to our TRUE Roman Catholic Bishops in the Thuc lineage,

Brother Francis

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #28 on:** September 12, 2012, 06:25:37 AM »

Quote from: brotherfrancis75

My good Brothers-in-Christ,

Today I lack the leisure to respond to this exceptionally relevant thread. But as soon as I am able I will put in my "two cents."

I also can make ABSOLUTELY no pretense of infallibility and must admit at the outset that Mr. Hobbles is clearly more knowledgeable of the theological literature than the rest of us, including myself.My effort will be a humble attempt in defense of Rochester, New York and my fellow Franciscans there. (I don't belong to their specific Franciscan community, but I am nevertheless a fellow traditional Franciscan with them.)

In most humble gratitude to our TRUE Roman Catholic Bishops in the Thuc lineage,

Brother Francis

I would agree with your assessment on Hobbles. That is the impression I had when I first read his posts and the impression I still have.

So, it takes some boldness to say, it seems odd that we are not sure where to look in order to find formal apostolicity.

I look to our traditional bishops. I think that is where the Church is found. Perhaps there is a hidden valid orthodox bishop somewhere and the world will end when he dies. Saying our bishops are not apostolic in the regular sense of the word, in my opinion, makes it seem like they are not doing the right thing by existing. That they should not have been consecrated because they did not have a Pope's consent, which they supposedly must have (by intrinsic necessity?) in order to be fully functional with ordinary jurisdiction.

Van Noort said they get the fullness of their office from God and later says that they must be approved by the Roman Pontiff. An apparent contradiction to the unschooled but I do not think it is a contradiction at all. I say this as one of the unschooled, merely thinking it is not a contradiction because I do not think Van Noort would be inconsistent without being able to reconcile the apparent contradiction myself. He goes on to mention that they need to be approved by the "power" of the Roman Pontiff, and at least by "implicit will" and by "legal approval".

I do not think papal approval is as simple as having a living Pope say "I approve you". I think if they are consecrated during the time of a valid Pope and he does not condemn it, they are fully apostolic. I think when fully orthodox bishops are consecrated to perpetuate the Church, when there is no Pope they join the Catholic hierarchy which is united to the Papacy and legally approved or tacitly approved. I believe they are either Catholic Bishops or they are not. If they are Catholic Bishops, they are fully functional.

On the other hand, there is no one to reign them in, or correct or refute them, they are not infallible and the can be excessive or defective in their preaching and remonstrations.

It is a unique situation. And I fall back on this alot and have not seen it thoroughly refuted. But I believe men of good will can disagree on this issue without necessarily being proven definitively wrong. Some of Van Noort seems to back one side while other parts seem to back the other side. But we can be relatively sure that he did not mistakenly contradict himself.

We can agree that it is doctrine that the Roman Pontiff must approve the consecration, but our understanding of precisely what that could mean or can't mean in regards to implicit will and legal approval or whatever terminology is used by Van Noort can be off.

The more learned can be right about 99 things and off on one. And the guy right about 60 or 70 things can happen to be right on the one thing the intellectually superior is wrong on.

The sad state of the Church has the clergy gun shy and silent about some things because of past mistakes, and the laity sometimes looks to one another for solutions which are not a sure path to sorting through the mess.

I say this knowing that Hobbles interpretation could be 100% correct, and Griff thereby would be clearly wrong. But I have my doubts. Serious doubts about that. They are both reading the same book and have come to different conclusions. And as I said, Van Noort seems to contradict himself. So what am I to say? I can say I feel safe with my traditional bishops but supposedly may "feeling safe with them" or knowing them to be "Catholic" does not necessarily mean that they are formally apostolic.

Can I say, oh well, it does not matter anyway.

Or, should I say this is too complicated for me and I live by my sensus catholicus as I instinctively know it is best to get the sacraments from them. No one on either side of the issue, on this forum, denies it is okay to go with them.

I have thought that a "material" bishop would be one given jurisdiction before he was consecrated. But this is the unschooled speculating and perhaps saying something rediculous.

Saying that the only Catholic Bishops hold a material apostolicity "does not sit well with me". That is not backed up by anything other than a gut response. But I would like to think it is an objective reaction not colored or biased by any agenda other than a search for facts. What I find pleasing about the back and forth is that there does not seem to be animosity in it. Hobbles is being very patient with me. And I can be both stubborn and stupid and that is not false humility speaking.

I am quite self-defecating by nature.

Nishant · « **Reply #29 on:** September 12, 2012, 11:23:49 AM »

Well, John, it's true that you and I have different perspectives on the present day, and I appreciate that you're being duly diligent in thinking over matters for yourself and consulting sources from the past and clergy or others you trust from the present, but I really don't think our disagreement on that matters so far as the traditional Catholic doctrine on Apostolicity and jurisdiction is concerned. SJB and Hobbledehoy are both sedevacantists, the CMRI is sedevacantist, and they would tell you or have told the same.

Just answer me this, will you - does jurisdiction flow to the Bishops from an empty seat or is it true that "jurisdiction flows to the Bishops only through the Pope" as Pope Pius XII taught? If the former, that appears clearly at variance with Pope Pius XII. If the latter, you have your answer from Magisterial teaching itself.

At the time of their episcopal consecration and installation into respective dioceses, it is required there be a living Pope who possesses supreme jurisdiction in act that they may receive their particular jurisdiction as flowing through him to them. This is one of the special prerogatives of the Papacy and Catholics who defend the traditional teaching today are doing no wrong.