Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Malleus

It is a controverted question whether the bishops hold their jurisdiction directly from God or from the sovereign pontiff. The latter opinion, however, is almost generally admitted at the present day, for it is more in conformity with the monarchical constitution of the Church, which seems to demand that there should be no power in the Church not emanating immediately from the sovereign pontiff.

It's no longer controverted. The question was settled by Pope Pius XII.

Which of course is Moot in an Interregnum

No, it is not. It is the teaching of the Church. This has been covered before in great detail.

Malleus,

The only traditional bishop I know that claims to be a successor of the Apostles by claiming jurisdiction is Bp. Vezelis, who I think claims jurisdiction over all Catholics in the Eastern U.S., or it may be the whole U.S.

Are you aware of any other traditional bishops who identify themselves as successors of the apostles, and by that claim jurisdiction?  If you are, please tell me so I can avoid them.

Bp. Daniel L. Dolan believes he's a successor to the apostles.

Quote

Bp. Daniel L. Dolan believes he's a successor to the apostles.

Source?

Fr. Cekada has said so, and he promotes his masses as "episcopally approved."

Malleus 01 wrote:

Quote

our Lord Jesus Christ established Holy Orders long before there were theology manuals dictating specific rules meant only to protect from outside schism or apostasy that some here use to exclude creating the very disunity these rules were meant to avoid .  The very nature of this discussion , in my view , seeks to strain the gnat and swallow the camel.  Our Lord condemned the Pharisees for this very behavior - that they sought the Letter of the Law not so as to Serve Almighty GOD - in the Spirit in which the law was given but rather themselves.

Many heresies and errors throughout the history of the Church were a debate over one words or several words.  Words signify a meaning, if the meaning is an error against the purity of the Church's doctrine, then it must rightfully be condemned.

I can see in you that you do not grasp this, and you do not need to understand every fine point of theology to be a good Catholic, but just leave it at this:  Apostolic succession must be transmitted through the Pope.  By this, we are not talking about the validity of the orders of the bishops, but whether they are the Apostle's successors.  There is a difference.

By stating the truth on this matter, we are not acting like Pharisees.  The Pharisees placed burdens on others by their harsh ideas, but were soft on themselves, as Our Lord called them hypocrites.  In this case, we are Catholics upholding the purity of the deposit of Faith.  Second, in this case, no one is denying what we are saying, they are only confused about it.  I am not aware of any Catholic that says the traditional bishops are the successors of the Apostles.

This exactly what I have been attempting to convey, but to no avail it seems. I was just about to scan and upload more pages from another theological work, but it seems people will explain the doctrines of the theologians regarding the nature of the Church somehow anyways.

The fulcrum of your entire argument still assumes the presence and orthodoxy of Bishops in the Post Counciliar Church. Msgr Van Noort wrote at a time when this was not an issue. Once again - to assume that a worldwide Modernist Heresy of the very same Type that St Pope Pius the X outlined in Pacendi Domenici Gregis as a danger to the Catholic Faith itself - to see it unfold before our very eyes in living color in the Catholic Hierarchy itself  - the manifestations of these very same Heresies , not only present but actually being promoted by a man who claims to sit on the Chair of St Peter - the very same Chair that Pope St Pius the X himself was teaching from - and by those who claim to occupy the various bishoprics throughout the entire world and then to retreat into theology manuals in a vain attempt to explain away the Elephant in the room is naive in my opinion.  Scripture does say that some strain the gnat and swallow the camel.

You do not seem to understand my arguments, which have nothing to do with the status of the Johannine-Pauline anti-Church. Never have I posited the hierarchy of such a structure as an alternative throughout this discussion.

I am fully aware of your position , Lover of Truths position , Nishants position et al , but really , the issue is never going to lie or be solved with lay interpretation of theology.

 

You are not fully aware of my position, as I have written above. You claim that the "lay interpretation of theology" is not going to do any good towards answering the pertinent questions, and yet you have quoted an internet transcript of the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia: a transcript the accuracy for which you cannot vouch, unless you have the actual tomes to cite from thence. And this without realizing that the Encyclopedia's information has been rendered moot by the teachings of the theologians as confirmed by Pope Pius XII.

And then you answer SJB's refutation by a blank statement about the interregnum: did Catholics of ages past ever inaugurate novelties and took the doctrines and decrees of Holy Mother Church as they deemed fit whensoever the Apostolic See was vacant?

You may answser in turn that this is because of the times, new problems, unprecedented crises, etc. So that, in turn, calls for Catholics to adopt the evolutionist and Hegelian methodologies wherewith the modernists have profaned and transgressed the doctrines and decrees of Holy Mother Church? Do you not see how problematic this is?

This issue remains in the domain of Aceticism and as such , the answers for Traditional Catholics lie there. You can tell me every thing you want to tell me about the writings of Msgr Van Noort - and I enjoy reading your dissertations. But tell me , why did The Cure of Ars , a farmer in his youth , with little formal education , have actual dialogue with the Blessed Virgin Mary herself?  Because he fasted , slept on cold stone floors , ate a single potatoe a day , gave away to the poor the possessions of value parishioners gave to him and as a result , became a great and Holy Saint.

And because he did so especially by docility to the magisterium and primacy of the Apostolic See, and converting sinners away from the road to perdition and to the narrow path of salvation and Evangelical perfection, in accordance to his sacred vocation and duly given mission. Without submission to the Church, there is no such thing as true sanctity. For even amongst the Jansenists and Buddhists, there are ascetics who would put us to shame in the practice of self-abnegation at the natural level.

My friend , we disagree , but nonetheless , our answers do not lie in further argumentation.

And in this we do agree, because apparently you are not understanding what I am attempting to convey to you.

Better to cease discussion and devote ourselves to prayer, but I cannot in good conscience pray and be at ease whilst I know my brethren are lured by error and proximate occasions of heresy, and keep silence.

People are trying to read my inner intentions for sharing things, "he's promoting his friends" or whatever.  

I'm not sure what anyone is trying to accomplish when they take cracks at why I post what I post.  If I was an objective observer, I would figure that it was because I had truth, and wanted to share it, and I believe others can state it far better than I can.  But you can think as you wish, the facts stay the same.

If you want to disagree with the only traditional Priest with a doctorate in theology you can.  I don’t.  Besides, you have to get around that uncomfortable (for some) indisputable fact that a public heretic cannot be Pope and that Popes cannot bind what the false Popes have bound these past 50 years:

Note: Father Stépanich is a Franciscan priest who was ordained in 1941 and who holds a Doctorate in Sacred Theology from the Catholic University. He has never offered the New Mass and over the years has carried on an extensive apostolate of correspondence with Catholics who resist the Vatican II errors.

      The following letters are his response to an objection one frequently hears made against sedevacantism.

*          *          *          *          *

November 30, 2002

Dear Correspondent:

      You quote the passage from Vatican Council I, Session IV, which states clearly that St. Peter, the first pope, has “perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church…”

      You, understandably,  wonder how it could be that there are still “perpetual successors” of St. Peter if the men who have claimed to be popes in our times have been in reality public heretics, who therefore could not, as heretics, be the true successors of St. Peter.

      The important thing here to understand just what kind of “perpetual succession” in the papacy Our Lord established.

      Did Our Lord intend that there should be a pope on the Chair of Peter every single  moment  of the Church’s existence and every single moment of the papacy existence?

      You will immediately realize that, no, Our Lord very obviously did not establish that kind of “perpetual succession” of popes.  You know that, all through the centuries of the Church’s existence, popes have been dying and that there then followed an interval, after the death of each pope, when there was no “perpetual successor,” no pope, occupying the Chair of Peter.  That Chair became vacant for a while whenever a pope died.  This has happened more than 260 times since the death of the first pope.

      But you also know that the death of a pope did not mean the end of the “perpetual succession” of popes after Peter.

      You understand now that “no pope” does not mean “no papacy.”  A vacant Chair of Peter after the death of a pope  does not mean a permanent vacancy of that Chair.  A temporary vacancy of the Chair of Peter does not mean the end of the “perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church.”  

      Even though Our Lord, had He so willed it, could have seen to it that, the moment one pope died, another man would automatically succeed him as pope, He nevertheless did not do it that way.

      Our Lord did it the way we have always known it to be, that is, He allowed for an interval, or interruption, of undesignated duration, to follow upon the death of each pope.

      That interruption of succession of popes has, most of the time, lasted several weeks, or a month or so, but there have been times when the interruption lasted longer than that, considerably longer.

      Our Lord did not specify just how long that interruption was allowed to last before a new pope was to be elected.  And He did not declare that, if the delay in electing a new pope lasted too long, the “perpetual succession” was then terminated, so that it would then have to be said that “the papacy is no more.”

      Nor did the Church ever specify the length or duration of the vacancy of the Chair of Peter to be allowed after the death of a pope.

      So it is clear that the present vacancy of the Chair of Peter, brought on by public heresy, despite the fact that it has lasted some 40 years or so, does not mean that the “perpetual succession” of popes after St. Peter has come to an end.

      What we must realize here is that the papacy, and with it the “perpetual succession” of popes is a Divine institution, not a human institution.  Therefore, man cannot put an end to the papacy, no matter how long God may allow heresy to prevail at the papal headquarters in Rome.

      Only God could, if He so willed, terminate the papacy.  But He willed not do so, because He has made His will known to His Church that there will be “perpetual successors” in the papal primacy that was first entrusted to St. Peter.

      We naturally feel distressed that the vacancy of the Chair of Peter has lasted so long, and we are unable to see the end of that vacancy in sight.  But we do realize that the restoration of the Catholic Faith, and with it the return of a true Catholic Pope to the Papal Chair, will come when God wills it and in the way He wills it.

      If it seems to us, as of now, that there are no qualified, genuinely Catholic electors, who could elect a new and truly Catholic Pope.  God can, for example, bring about the conversion of enough Cardinals to the traditional Catholic Faith, who would then proceed to elect a new Catholic Pope.

      God can intervene in whatever way it may please Him, in order to restore everything as He originally willed it to be in His Holy Church.

      Nothing is impossible with God.

Father Martin Stépanich, O.F.M., S.T.D.

*          *          *          *          *

March 25, 2003

Dear Faithful Catholic:

      Your letter of February 21, 2003, tells me about “doubting Thomases”  who say that they “just can’t believe” that the Chair of Peter could have been vacant for as much as 40 years, or even for only 25 years, without the “perpetual succession” of popes being thereby permanently broken.

      Those “doubting Thomases” presumably grant that the “perpetual succession” of popes remains unbroken during the relatively short intervals that follow upon the deaths of popes, and you indicate that, at least for a while, they have even understood – to their credit – that a public and unrepentant heretic cannot possibly be a true Catholic Pope and that the Chair of St. Peter must necessarily become vacant if it is taken over by such a public heretic.

      But, as you sadly say, those “doubting Thomases” changed their views after they read the Declaration of Ecuмenical Council Vatican I (1870) which you quoted from Denzinger in your letter of November 8, 2002.  Vatican I declared that “the Blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the Universal Church…”

      Notice carefully that Vatican I says nothing more than that St. Peter shall have “perpetual successors” in the primacy, which obviously means that the “perpetual succession” of popes will last until the end of time.

      Vatican I says nothing about how long Peter’s Chair may be vacant before the “perpetual succession” of popes would supposedly come to a final end.  Yet the “doubting Thomases” imagine they see in the Vatican I declaration something which just  isn’t there.  They presume to think that “perpetual successors in the primacy” means that there can never be an extra long vacancy of Peter’s Chair, but only those short vacancies that we have always known to occur after the deaths of popes.  But that isn’t the teaching of Vatican I.  It is the mistaken “teaching” of “doubting Thomases.”

      Curiously enough, the “doubting Thomases” never suggest just how long a vacancy of Peter’s Chair would be needed to put a supposedly final end to the “perpetual succession” of popes.  Their imagination has gotten  them into an impossible  situation.  They “just can’t believe” that the vacancy of Peter’s Chair could last for 25 or 40 years or more, while, at the same time, they “just can’t believe” that a public heretic could possibly be a true Catholic Pope.  At one and the same time, they do have a Pope, yet they do not have a Pope.  They have a heretic “Pope,” but they do not have a true Catholic Pope.

      Not being able to convince the “doubting Thomases” that they are all wrong and badly confused, you have hoped that some unknown “Church teaching” could be found in some book that would make the “doubting Thomases” see the light.

      But you don’t need any additional “Church teaching” besides what you have already quoted from Vatican I.  You can plainly see that Vatican I did not say anything about how long a vacancy of Peter’s Chair may be.  You also know that Our Lord never said that the vacancy of the Papal Chair may last only so long and no longer.

      Most important of all, never forget that men cannot put an end to the “perpetual succession” of popes, no matter how long public heretics may occupy Peter’s Chair.  The Catholic Papacy comes from God, not from man.  To put an end to the “perpetual succession” of popes, you would first have to put an end to God Himself.

Father Martin Stépanich, O.F.M., S.T.D.

----

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Belloc

Section 343 III
Could that be devoid on exigency circuмstance outlined in the Code of Canon Law 1983 and which is used by SSPX to explain 1988 consecrations?

assume so.....

Quote

Archbishop Lefebvre explaining that his bishops are not claiming ordinary jurisdiction:

We are striving to act in such a way that we cannot be reproached with the bishops' being given a territorial jurisdiction, in such a way that there is no bishop being attributed to such and such a territory. Of course, it's only normal that a French bishop should go to France, and that a German-speaking bishop should go to Germany, but from time to time, we try to bring about an exchange in order to head off that accusation. Of course, it is normal that in the United States, Bishop Williamson should give the confirmations. But Bishop Fellay went to give confirmations in St. Mary's, Kansas, and so one cannot say that the United States are the domain of Bishop Williamson. Bishop Fellay also went to South Africa which had previously been visited by Bishop Williamson. As for Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, he went to South America and to Zaitzkofen in Germany. So, we are striving to establish this principle, that there is no territorial jurisdiction.

Quote

From Fideliter:

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Firstly, I was assured that, by such a consecration, even carried out against the will of the pope, neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor myself nor my confreres were creating a schism, since the Archbishop did not intend to assign us any jurisdiction, or a particular flock. "The mere fact of consecrating a bishop [against the will of the pope] is not in itself a schismatic act," declared Cardinal Castillo Lara (President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Legislative Texts; quoted from an interview given to the newspaper La Repubblica, 10 July 1988.) a few days after the event; and Fr. Patrick Valdrini also explained, "It is not the consecration of a bishop [against the pope's will] that creates a schism...; what consummates the schism is to confer upon that bishop an apostolic mission." (Doyen of the Faculty of Canon Law of the Catholic Institute of Paris; interview appearing in Valeurs Actuelles, 4 July 1988.)

Fideliter: But didn't Archbishop Lefebvre confer upon you an apostolic mission?

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Archbishop Lefebvre told us: "You are bishops for the Church, for the Society; you will give the sacrament of Confirmation and confer Holy Orders; you will preach the faith." That is all. He did not say, "I confer these powers to you"; he simply indicated to us what our role would be. The jurisdiction that he did not give us - which he could not give us - and which the pope refused to give us, has been supplied by the Church, who gives it to us because of the state of necessity of the faithful. It is a suppletory jurisdiction, of the same nature as that which is accorded to priests by Canon Law in other cases of necessity. An example would be the jurisdiction to administer the sacrament of confession validly in the case of common error or positive and probable doubt, of right or of fact, about the jurisdiction of a priest (canon 209). In such a case, the Church has the habit of supplying the jurisdiction that might be lacking to the minister: "Ecclesia supplet."

Fideliter: So, by receiving the episcopal consecration in such circuмstances and by exercising its power, you were able to be sure that you were not usurping any jurisdiction.

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Yes, no ordinary jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction is extraordinary and suppletory. It is not exercised over a determined territory, but case by case over the persons who are in need: confirmands, seminarians of the Society or candidates to the priesthood recommended by other traditional works.

Fideliter: Your consecration, then, Your Excellency, did not create a schism.

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: No, not in any way. But a touchier question was talked about as far back as 1983, when Archbishop Lefebvre, confronted with the 1983 Code of Canon Law published by John Paul II, began to seriously consider consecrating one or more bishops: would these bishops, not recognized by the pope, be legitimate? Would they enjoy the "formal apostolic succession"? In a word, would they be Catholic bishops?

Fideliter: And that is a more difficult question to resolve than the one about jurisdiction, you say?

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Yes, because it has to do with the divine constitution of the Church, as all Tradition teaches: there can be no legitimate bishop without the pope, without at least the implicit consent of the pope, by divine right head of the episcopal body. The answer is less evident; in fact, it is not at all evident...unless you were to suppose...

Fideliter: Your Excellency, certainly you are not a sedevacantist?

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: No, in fact. But it must be recognized that if we could affirm that, for reasons of heresy, schism, or some defect in the secret election, the pope was not really pope, if we could pronounce such a judgment, the answer to the delicate question of our legitimacy would be clear. The trouble, if I can so express it, is that neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor myself were or are sedevacantists.

Where does the above affirm or deny that bishops consecrated during past interregnums were apostolic?

Define "apostolic."

A Catholic Bishop in every sense of the word.  Having the same authority as those consecrated during none-interregnums.