In case of doubt, should it be the traditional teaching we change in light of the "facts" or should it be our understanding of the facts that change in light of the immutable teaching of the faith?
Agreed. I don't believe I have contradicted any doctrines of the Church. I don't recognize theological opinions as being doctrines of the Church. They are usually correct but not always. St Thomas Aquinas was of the opinion that Our Lady was not immaculately conceived. Should the Church have been bound by his opinion? Of course not! So if you can show that a particular teaching is de fide then yes, of course, even the "facts" must be interpreted in the light of that teaching. However, the indefectibility (as opposed to the infallibility) of the local Roman Church is merely an opinion. An opinion which can't be taken lightly but an opinion nevertheless. If the facts appear to contradict that opinion then I don't think it is unreasonable to question the veracity of it. Furthermore, even reason can tell us that the opinion is questionable because the indefectibility and the infallibility of the Roman Church are based on the Church's teaching concerning the Roman pontiff. But we know that the Church has only defined the infallibility of the Pope, not his indefectibility. We know there will always be successors of Peter so we can also infer that the local Roman Church will continue until the end of time. But that doesn't mean there will not be periods where it is diminished even to the point of losing its hierarchical order. The hierarchical order can always be restored with the election of another pope.
“Question: Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate? Answer: There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the church, i.e., by an ecuмenical council or the College of Cardinals. The question is hypothetical rather than practical”.
One thing you have to remember is that in the period between the heresy becoming manifest and the Church making a formal declaration no Catholic is required to submit to the suspected heretic.
“The Cardinals, who are his counselors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune. For any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: ‘Avoid the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment’ (Tit. 3, 10-11). For the person, who admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or public dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic ...
Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will be had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church
I think that quote supports the sede vacante position more than it supports the R&R position. Unfortunately, in the present crisis, the Cardinals and the Roman Clergy have adhered to the Conciliar schism. So it will have to be a council of Catholic clergy who make the declaration.
You know, when we discussed this on IA, I understood the perspective you had at the time, even if I disagreed. Your view seems to have changed a lot since then.
I only remember discussing the particular point about whether or not uninterrupted ordinary jurisdiction is absolutely necessary in order to preserve the apostolicity of the Church. So I am certainly concerned about explaining the current crisis in such a way as to show that apostolicity is being preserved. But I'm not attached to any particular explanation. I am just trying to find the best explanation. I'm now convinced that uninterrupted ordinary jurisdiction is necessary. But now I believe that at least some traditional bishops have ordinary jurisdiction.
Back to CM: We've seen the quotes from both Spirago Clarke and Dom Gueranger before, have we not, on the extreme seriousness of claiming ordinary jurisdiction without a demonstrable canonical mission from the Pope? The former in fact clarify your precise doubt, "The Pope gives their jurisdiction to the bishops; and no bishop may exercise his office before being recognized and confirmed by the Pope." Only after the confirmation, the bishop can exercise his office and power of jurisdiction.
I haven't seen that quote before. Thanks for posting it. I would have to say that in the present situation where there is no reigning Pope but there is a dire need for bishops, we can be morally certain that it is the implicit will of the next Catholic Pope that the Church have bishops with ordinary jurisdiction. In such an emergency, the salvation of souls is the highest law and it is necessary that the bishops exercise their offices prior to being confirmed by the Pope. While it is irregular from a disciplinary perspective it would still preserve the apostolicity of the Church.
What Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society have always said is precisely this traditional teaching - he told the Bishops he appointed, you can place your episcopacy in the hands of a future Pope, and after he confirms you, then you will begin to have ordinary jurisdiction.
Wow! That is a magnificent confirmation of what I am saying. Do you have a source for that? I would like to read the source material on that. I don't think any traditionalist would want to say that the next Pope will refuse to confirm the traditional bishops. So under the present circuмstances it is necessary that they begin exercising their offices prior being confirmed. This circuмstance has happened in the past where bishops were appointed during an interregnum.
The Papal confirmation is not just a condition to receive jurisdiction, it is the cause.
That's OK, I think we can have moral certainty that the next Catholic Pope will confirm them. Therefore they can begin exercising their offices now. I also believe that the next Catholic Pope will approve of them exercising their offices now.