A few days ago, I made a post asking whether any Bishop ordained in the Old Rite rejected Baptism of Desire, or not. The initial conclusion of that post led me to discover Bishop Neal Webster, who reportedly rejects BoD in principle, but does not believe it to be so significant a heresy as to place it onto others.
However, this led me down a bit of a rabbit hole. Apparently, Bishop Webster may have been illicitly consecretated by Palmarian Bishops. There are mixed reports on his consecration- some say he's from the Thuc line, others say he received his orders from Palmarian schismatics. Regardless, however, it appears that not even most staunch anti-BoD thinkers, like the Dimond Brothers, count him as a solid and non-heretical bishop. For, as is clear to most, he does not actually appear to enforce the rejection of BoD. Hence, I remain unconvinced that there is a true "Feeneyite" Bishop out there today who holds fully to the necessary visibility of the Church. If this is true, then perhaps there is an explanation that can reconcile EENS and BoD, as well as Vatican II- even if we don't see it right now.
Now, if you asked me to reconcile the entire crisis, I would be the first to admit that I can't. I'm no theologian, I'm not even a good Catholic. I have terrible scruples, however, and want to choose the most reasonable position I can.
This quote from Etsi Multa strongly implies that not all bishops can defect. "[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]They obstinately reject and oppose the infallible magisterium both of the Roman Pontiff and of the whole Church in teaching matters. Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the EcuŠ¼enical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head."[/color][/size]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]The first objection one could make is that the passage states that the Pope, bishops, and priests must defect for the Church to defect. However, reading the next sentence, we realize this to be a poor interpretation, for the blasphemy comes from stating that the visible Head and bishops have erred, and appointing a psuedo-bishop (like Neal Webster may be) in their wake. [/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]The second objection one could make is that there may be a non-heretical bishop out there, but we just cannot see him, or he has not revealed himself. However, this is equally problematic to objection one, for Satis Cognitum states, "[/color]The union consequently of visible and invisible elements because it harmonizes with the natural order and by God's will belongs to the very essence of the Church, must necessarily remain so long as the Church itself shall endure." What are these visible and invisible elements? Well, they are best described here:[/size]
"The Apostles received a mission to teach by visible and audible signs, and they discharged their mission only by words and acts which certainly appealed to the senses... In the same way in man, nothing is more internal than heavenly grace which begets sanctity, but the ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace are external: that is to say, the sacraments which are administered by men specially chosen for that purpose, by means of certain ordinances."
The docuŠ¼ent goes onto say that, "the mystical body of Christ is the true Church, only because its visible parts draw life and power from the supernatural gifts and other things whence spring their very nature and essence. But since the Church is such by divine will and constitution, such it must uniformly remain to the end of time."
One could take a Home Alone stance, but this is also deeply unsatisfying. The creed professes belief in one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church, but if apostolic succession ended 60+ years ago, then the Church is no longer apostolic. There is also a thread discussing thoroughly the objection that this is the consummation of the world and therefore the Church's succession can end. I believe Stubborn was a main participant in it, so hopefully he'll contribute here, but I'll post the link later if he doesn't. Essentially, the objection here fails too, as there is no good support that Apostolic succession will end before the end of time, while there is much better evidence that there will be a full hierarchy maintaining unity of communion and faith, two necessary parts of the Church as per Satis Cognitum, until the end of days.
Because of all of these reasons, I am inclined to posit the following possibilities:
1) Baptism of Desire, as understood by most, is either a doctrine of the Church in some kind of divine mystery, or it is not substantially a heresy unless taken out of control so as to deny EENS. This probably undermines sedevacantism.
2) Somehow (I'm not saying this is certain by any means), the Vatican II Church is the Catholic Church, the New Rite of Ordination and Consecration, as well as the New Mass, are all valid. This undermines sedevacantism.
3) Neal Webster is a valid bishop and the objections against him are wrong. (I don't see this one as anything more than dubious.)
4) One can go to heretics for Sacraments, and clergymen can be heretics and legitimate Catholic clergy (which seems to undermine sedevacantism).
I'm sure this will cause some strong replies, but this is all just speculation on my part, and I mean it in goodwill. Pax Christi!
Topic: Baptism of Desire, the Hierarchy, and Visibility- a Follow-up (Read 289 times)