Lot, I am going to continue our discussion on this new thread as our discussion has very little do do with starting a sedevacantist religious order.  

I will be writing you a detailed response to your last post and will continue this so long as you wish to continue.  I am not by this saying that this is only a discussion between just you and I, and I hope that Hobbledehoy, SJB, Nishant and others with valuable input will join in.

Feel free to attack my mental capacity, the inner workings of my mind, my motives, as others have, or respond civilly as you typically do according to what you know God would have you do simply avoiding personal aspersions and argue to the point.  Do I try your patience (because I just don’t get it or some other reason or because it appears I don’t want the truth and argue for arguments sake)?  Then do what I do to others that try my patience and ignore me.  Do you think I have the capacity to grasp the points you make?  The let’s discuss, or let it go yourself.  Does my bringing it up while admitting my ignorance on the topic somehow cause grave scandal to the mystical body of Christ?  Is anybody who is reading this losing the faith?

You do not try my patience.  You would be surprised if you knew me in real life.  The things I deal with make this look very minor.  My patience is regularly tried in the fire, so no, my friend, I am happy to continue this with you so long as it takes.  

All heresy and error is grave, and all of it has consequences.  Oftentimes when an error begins, it starts small, and the gravity of its consequences are not readily observable.  This is why on this forum with hundreds of Catholics, very few detect the danger of Mr. Ruby's position, and most likely even he does not see the extreme danger to it.

I'm not sure how bringing it up and trying to get to the bottom of the issue can harm others as has been suggested, especially regarding my side of the controversy; particularly when considering that I have pointed out my ignorance.  I know my postings won't make people getting the Sacraments under our Traditional Bishops stop going, but those who take the contrary stance give home-aloners fodder and those not sure what to do reason to stay-home and away from the Sacraments we all need.  I post objections in good conscience.  Decent Catholic individuals should be able to carry on a civil discussion on the topic without personal insults or simply let it go.  I do not condemn the contrary position or those who hold it.  I am even open to the plausibility of it.  But now it should not be raised?  Regarding my shutting up and never speaking to the issue again depends on various contingencies which I may not even be aware of right now such as whether the issue is brought up by someone else again or not, or if I am called out again as you have just done, or not, or if I get fully convinced one way or the other or not.  I'm not sure what is wrong with discussing controversial issues here.  It seems to be done quite frequently.  Hopefully between good willed people who only want truth.  I don't doubt you are good willed and only want truth. After reading your above post I’m not sure what you think of me.  A bad willed troll perhaps.  Let me know a legitimate flaw of mine and it will be duly noted.  Or is the flaw the mere bringing up of the topic?  

This issue may not affect Catholics partaking in the sacraments, but it could lead to other forms of harm.  It is imperative that Catholics correctly understand who the hierarchy are, as only the hierarchy can receive the submission of Catholics on matters of Faith, morals, and law.  There are no other authorized leaders of Catholics than the hierarchy.  

In my opinion, formed from observing Catholics who attend traditional chapels either in person or on Internet forums over the years, I believe that many no longer grasp this basic truth any longer.  Many Catholics now look to unauthorized leaders whether it is Bp. Fellay, the Dimond Brothers, Fr. Cekada, Bp. Kelly, Bp. Sanborn and others to form their conscience.  The plain truth is that none of these men have even a grain of authority in the Church.  

Their opinions on whatever matters they speak on, is only as strong as any authorities they use to support their view.  They are not authorities, they, like us, must look to authorities to back themselves up, and they have not one ounce of authority to command any Catholic to do anything or listen to them.

Regarding the home-aloners, they are not all united, and there are various factions and nuances to their position.  Are you ready to dismiss everything they say?  Do you understand their arguments?  So long as they have have the Faith, and submit themselves to the lawful authority of the Church, and have not severed communion with other Catholics, they remain Catholic.

I'm not sure why this is made into a personal thing when I'm just seeking objective facts and responses to my objections.  I lay down my arms and get shot.  I’m willing to agree to disagree or continue the discussion, minus any personal attacks.  I thought we had an open discussion on another thread that I could get back to.  Is that wrong now?

Please don't be offended, angry are hurl personal accusations (not that you have, except slightly in the opening quote on this post), not sure why you would make this something personal now, nothing personal intended but here is the article from the Four Marks whose articles are vetted by CMRI clergy which was posted by Griff Ruby:

This is not personal, it is about the truth, the Faith.  Regarding CMRI's involvement in this, I would like to see proof that they support Mr. Ruby's position or believe it is a tolerable position.  Hobbledehoy asked you to provide this, and to be honest, I am certain that it does not exist.  If you believe otherwise, I welcome you to prove me wrong.  A letter from CMRI would suffice.

Do you have a response to this apart from whether I should raise the issue or not.  I want the topic to be more about jurisdiction than it is about me if possible.  When we last left off you implied I needed to prove the old Novus Ordo Bishops are heretics and I replied that I do not need to prove anything than what is obvious on its face which is they are united to a false sect.

What say you?

I have read Mr. Ruby's article.  He classifies only four categories of possibilities of where the hierarchy exists.  His article does not address the fact that the hierarchy has not been invisible, just obscured.  They are obscured from sight because they are mixed in with heretics, who they have not identified.  

The solution is to trust the Church.  Every point is answered already by authority.  The theologians and the canonists all discuss how offices are lost, resignations, how to determine if one is a heretic, the necessity of a mission, etc.  

The hierarchy exists in all of the bishops who are sent by the Church, and who still have the Faith.  They are not invisible.  Their names are known, and have been known throughout this crisis.  They are only obscured due to their perceived adherence to the antipope.  Like all Catholics who have kept the Faith throughout this crisis, however, any adherence to these heretics is not true adherence, as true adherence means submission to their teaching authority, which no Catholic who has the Faith is able to do.

Quote

Feel free to attack my mental capacity, the inner workings of my mind, my motives, as others have, or respond civilly as you typically do according to what you know God would have you do simply avoiding personal aspersions and argue to the point.  Do I try your patience (because I just don’t get it or some other reason or because it appears I don’t want the truth and argue for arguments sake)?  Then do what I do to others that try my patience and ignore me.  Do you think I have the capacity to grasp the points you make?  The let’s discuss, or let it go yourself.  Does my bringing it up while admitting my ignorance on the topic somehow cause grave scandal to the mystical body of Christ?  Is anybody who is reading this losing the faith?

You do not try my patience.  You would be surprised if you knew me in real life.  The things I deal with make this look very minor.  My patience is regularly tried in the fire, so no, my friend, I am happy to continue this with you so long as it takes.  

Great!  There I times when I almost feel the animosity breathing down my neck as with the judgements on my inner motives, thankfully you are not like that.

All heresy and error is grave, and all of it has consequences.  Oftentimes when an error begins, it starts small, and the gravity of its consequences are not readily observable.  This is why on this forum with hundreds of Catholics, very few detect the danger of Mr. Ruby's position, and most likely even he does not see the extreme danger to it.

Tangibly, what danger has resulted or can result apart from the issue being made clear?

Quote

I'm not sure how bringing it up and trying to get to the bottom of the issue can harm others as has been suggested, especially regarding my side of the controversy; particularly when considering that I have pointed out my ignorance.  I know my postings won't make people getting the Sacraments under our Traditional Bishops stop going, but those who take the contrary stance give home-aloners fodder and those not sure what to do reason to stay-home and away from the Sacraments we all need.  I post objections in good conscience.  Decent Catholic individuals should be able to carry on a civil discussion on the topic without personal insults or simply let it go.  I do not condemn the contrary position or those who hold it.  I am even open to the plausibility of it.  But now it should not be raised?  Regarding my shutting up and never speaking to the issue again depends on various contingencies which I may not even be aware of right now such as whether the issue is brought up by someone else again or not, or if I am called out again as you have just done, or not, or if I get fully convinced one way or the other or not.  I'm not sure what is wrong with discussing controversial issues here.  It seems to be done quite frequently.  Hopefully between good willed people who only want truth.  I don't doubt you are good willed and only want truth. After reading your above post I’m not sure what you think of me.  A bad willed troll perhaps.  Let me know a legitimate flaw of mine and it will be duly noted.  Or is the flaw the mere bringing up of the topic?  

This issue may not affect Catholics partaking in the sacraments, but it could lead to other forms of harm.  It is imperative that Catholics correctly understand who the hierarchy are, as only the hierarchy can receive the submission of Catholics on matters of Faith, morals, and law.  There are no other authorized leaders of Catholics than the hierarchy.  

Sounds good.

In my opinion, formed from observing Catholics who attend traditional chapels either in person or on Internet forums over the years, I believe that many no longer grasp this basic truth any longer.  Many Catholics now look to unauthorized leaders whether it is Bp. Fellay, the Dimond Brothers, Fr. Cekada, Bp. Kelly, Bp. Sanborn and others to form their conscience.  The plain truth is that none of these men have even a grain of authority in the Church.  

Interesting choice of characters to pick  :dancing: I can't help to notice you did not mention the CMRI clergy in that list.  One thing I will grant is that the traditional clergy cannot agree with each other on important peripherals and some of them "bind" disciplines on the laity that good Catholic clergy would not dream of binding.  This lead credence in a subjective way to your position, if they are the true clergy why can't they lead.  But that is subjective it really avoids the real issue as to who has the mandate, who might have the mandate, who absolutely for sure does not have the mandate no matter what, who absolutely for sure does have the mandate despite ALL appearances etc.

Their opinions on whatever matters they speak on, is only as strong as any authorities they use to support their view.  They are not authorities, they, like us, must look to authorities to back themselves up, and they have not one ounce of authority to command any Catholic to do anything or listen to them.

My above paragraph would seem to lend support to what you say and I grant you the subjective point but that does not clear up the issue itself.

Regarding the home-aloners, they are not all united, and there are various factions and nuances to their position.  Are you ready to dismiss everything they say?  Do you understand their arguments?  So long as they have have the Faith, and submit themselves to the lawful authority of the Church, and have not severed communion with other Catholics, they remain Catholic.

I'll grant that as well.

Quote

I'm not sure why this is made into a personal thing when I'm just seeking objective facts and responses to my objections.  I lay down my arms and get shot.  I’m willing to agree to disagree or continue the discussion, minus any personal attacks.  I thought we had an open discussion on another thread that I could get back to.  Is that wrong now?

Please don't be offended, angry are hurl personal accusations (not that you have, except slightly in the opening quote on this post), not sure why you would make this something personal now, nothing personal intended but here is the article from the Four Marks whose articles are vetted by CMRI clergy which was posted by Griff Ruby:

This is not personal, it is about the truth, the Faith.  Regarding CMRI's involvement in this, I would like to see proof that they support Mr. Ruby's position or believe it is a tolerable position.  Hobbledehoy asked you to provide this, and to be honest, I am certain that it does not exist.  If you believe otherwise, I welcome you to prove me wrong.  A letter from CMRI would suffice.

I do not talk much with them or Kathleen anymore.  I am sorry that my word is not good enough.  It can be verified or proven wrong, very easily if someone would just check with either Kathleen and or the CMRI to back up my statement.  It is not a statement I would make up.  Even if I was crocked I would not make it up because if it was false it could easily be proven wrong.  Why does not anyone ask Kathleen or CMRI if they vet the articles published in her paper?

Quote

Do you have a response to this apart from whether I should raise the issue or not.  I want the topic to be more about jurisdiction than it is about me if possible.  When we last left off you implied I needed to prove the old Novus Ordo Bishops are heretics and I replied that I do not need to prove anything than what is obvious on its face which is they are united to a false sect.

What say you?

I have read Mr. Ruby's article.  He classifies only four categories of possibilities of where the hierarchy exists.  His article does not address the fact that the hierarchy has not been invisible, just obscured.  They are obscured from sight because they are mixed in with heretics, who they have not identified.  

He admits that they can be obscured for a time but after all these decades we should know who they are.

The solution is to trust the Church.  Every point is answered already by authority.  The theologians and the canonists all discuss how offices are lost, resignations, how to determine if one is a heretic, the necessity of a mission, etc.  

I've read much of this.  I point out regarding doctrine that there is an intrinsicness to it and if the mandate was given implicitly in the past even during interregnums it can be given tacitly now.  The disciplinary aspect is what can be imposed for certain times such as when the Church seemed to be flourishing under Pius XII and the Sacraments could be found anywhere.

The hierarchy exists in all of the bishops who are sent by the Church, and who still have the Faith.  They are not invisible.  Their names are known, and have been known throughout this crisis.  They are only obscured due to their perceived adherence to the antipope.  Like all Catholics who have kept the Faith throughout this crisis, however, any adherence to these heretics is not true adherence, as true adherence means submission to their teaching authority, which no Catholic who has the Faith is able to do.

 

Please notice my green quotes above.

Here is where we divide and you have yet to respond to my objections.

I maintain that we can only judge external and if the old bishops appear united to the Novus Ordo we judge them as such.  Why do we all of sudden have to read their minds before we can reach a conclusion.  This is the weakest part of your defense.  I believe other SVs who agree with you on jurisdiction do not make the claim about the Novus Ordo clergy as you do as they see the weakness in that argument.  They also see the weakness in the argument that the hierarchy is hidden so they don't try to defend that to much either.  They just shout from the roof-tops that those who kept the faith throughout and are validly consecrated are NOT the true hierarchy.  That is what is perplexing to me.

Quote

I maintain that we can only judge external and if the old bishops appear united to the Novus Ordo we judge them as such.

The Novus Ordo isn't a condemned sect.

Quote

Why do we all of sudden have to read their minds before we can reach a conclusion.  This is the weakest part of your defense.

It's not part of the argument. Yes, we judge the externals, as does the Church.

Quote

I believe other SVs who agree with you on jurisdiction do not make the claim about the Novus Ordo clergy as you do as they see the weakness in that argument.  They also see the weakness in the argument that the hierarchy is hidden so they don't try to defend that to much either.  They just shout from the roof-tops that those who kept the faith throughout and are validly consecrated are NOT the true hierarchy.  That is what is perplexing to me.

LoT, they are NOT the hierarchy. None of them has made that claim and you shouldn't want them to either. Their mission should be to provide the Sacraments of the Church and, the same as laymen, witness to the Faith.

SJB do you believe the 1958 bishops in the Novus Ordo are our hierarchy?  Why or why not?  It is relevant to the discussion Ambrose and I are having as he seems to hang his hat on this "fact".  

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Hermenegild

Quote from: SJB

Their mission should be to provide the Sacraments of the Church

They have no mission to do this - they just took it upon themselves to "mint" new bishops and priests.

Then it goes back, supposing the mandate is not implicit, should the Church just dissolve during a long interregnum.  

Which is the worse of the two choices:

1.  Do nothing?

2.  Continue to provide spiritual nourishment (the ordinary means to salvation) for the faithful?

Can going outside the Church to receive episcopal consecration be justified under any circuмstances (speaking here of the SV clergy)?

What Church are they going outside of?

Quote from: SJB

Their mission should be to provide the Sacraments of the Church

They have no mission to do this - they just took it upon themselves to "mint" new bishops and priests.

I don't mean they are sent to do this, so the word "mission" isn't meant to imply this. Catholics have a right to the sacraments, and under certain conditions may approach a valid priest for those sacraments.

Ambrose,

If Hobbles writes anything that is not a personal attack please feel free to share it with me, but don't feel obligated.  

This is between and anyone capable of a civil exchange.  Obviously the uncivil can jump in if they like though.

Ambrose wrote:

Quote

In my opinion, formed from observing Catholics who attend traditional chapels either in person or on Internet forums over the years, I believe that many no longer grasp this basic truth any longer.  Many Catholics now look to unauthorized leaders whether it is Bp. Fellay, the Dimond Brothers, Fr. Cekada, Bp. Kelly, Bp. Sanborn and others to form their conscience.  The plain truth is that none of these men have even a grain of authority in the Church.  

LoT in response wrote:

Quote

Interesting choice of characters to pick   I can't help to notice you did not mention the CMRI clergy in that list.  One thing I will grant is that the traditional clergy cannot agree with each other on important peripherals and some of them "bind" disciplines on the laity that good Catholic clergy would not dream of binding.  This lead credence in a subjective way to your position, if they are the true clergy why can't they lead.  But that is subjective it really avoids the real issue as to who has the mandate, who might have the mandate, who absolutely for sure does not have the mandate no matter what, who absolutely for sure does have the mandate despite ALL appearances etc.

I deliberately left out Bishop Pivarunas because to the best of my knowledge he lives the truth that he believes, that he has no jurisdiction.  The others may deny that fact, but it appears that in practice they do not live it.

I will also say while I am at it, that Bishop Williamson also believes this truth.  He publicly repudiates any idea that he has authority.

The mission to become a successor to the Apostles cannot be stolen, it must be given by one authorized to give it.  This power alone belongs to the Pope.  

I felt like you were appealing to my emotion rather than to logic when you listed the "brothers".  I don't think anyone thinks the brothers have jurisdiction over anyone.

Also there was a quote from a manual that no one has responded to me yet.  It suggested that bishops without ordinary jurisdiction should be treated like aliens.  

I said, to Nishant, if that is true should we treat the CMRI clergy as aliens? I have not received a response from anyone on that.

Notice this quote from John Lane's blog:

Jurisdiction is ordinary when it is proper to he who holds it. That is, when a bishop governs his diocese he is not acting as an agent of the pope, but as the prince of that diocese. He is not independent of the pope, but he is truly the ruler of his diocese. This is best understood by comparing it to the jurisdiction enjoyed by a papal legate or an auxiliary bishop. These act as the agents of he who authorized them. They do not act in their own name, but in the name of their superior.

A papal legate returns from attending a council where he has agreed to something or other in the name of the pope. The pope looks at it and says, "No, I do not agree with this. You had no right to agree with this. Yes, you acted as my agent, and those to whom you were sent had every right to expect that you would only agree to things that I truly agree with, but in this case you did not do so. You accepted something beyond the scope of what you were entitled to accept. I will write and repudiate your act, which is not mine. This will be awkward and embarrassing and perhaps harmful to peaceful relations, but it is necessary."

This is totally different in principle to how a pope can interfere in a diocese. Say that a bishop appoints an unsuitable man to be rector of the diocesan seminary, and the pope hears about it. He decides that he must interfere in this matter. The pope simply cannot tell the appointee that he was invalidly appointed, so that he has never really been rector of the seminary. No, the pope must remove him. He must step in over the head of the bishop, and either order the bishop to remove the seminary rector, or he must do so himself. But the act of appointment was not the pope's and therefore the pope cannot repudiate it. He can only countermand it after the fact. The bishop's act was his own (bad) choice. He did not act as the pope's agent, but rather he acted in his own name, with his own proper authority.

The authority of the traditional bishops with respect to their flock (the priests, religious, and lay of the bishop’s particular traditional Catholic community) is “ordinary” in the sense that it is proper to them, though received by them from a superior (the implicit will of the Pope, as visibly expressed in the bishops in good standing who chose and consecrated them).  Their authority with respect to the Church as a whole is that of auxiliaries (delegates) of the Diocese of Rome, within which they act only as legates.