It might be opposed to what Archbishop Lefebvre said but you will have to show me how it is opposed to traditional doctrine.  Where has there ever been a valid and licit consecration which did not confer a canonical mission?  Obviously, because heretics and schismatics are outside the Church they can not consecrate licitly so there is no canonical mission there.  But it was supposed that ++Lefebvre was unjustly suspended and therefore he retained his canonical mission and his apostolicity.  His consecrations were not only valid but licit as well.  Bishops have been licitly consecrated during interegnums in the past so obviously a papal mandate from a living pope is not absolutely necessary.  It is possible for a bishop to confer a canonical mission during an interegnum.

Thanks for the sound input Clemens Maria.

People insist on looking for the hierarchy in all the wrong places.  It is right where it appears to be, with the Catholic Bishops who maintain the faith.  

I am sure the average soul wades through an elaborate PhD thesis to determine this question! One look at this 'apology for a pope' tells me he ain't out of pure instinct. But if I were to add a bit of logic (always a danger for gamblers!) .... and be guided by those who shout the loudest yet they never seem to take their own advice ...... I would simply say Bergoglio heads a new church and repudiates the old one. End of.

One such talker was Michael Davies who surrounded himself with so many hedging devices that ensured his passage into the next world was risk-free to the max. And when that time came his mind was in such a confusion that he raced through his writing to edit out any unkindess towards Rome. I tire of endless scripts that are clever enough to contain (if you look hard enough) get-out clauses. He went to his eternal courtesy of the conciliar church as so many English so-called traditionalists seem to prefer. End of.  

Nice post!  I'm glad to see someone realizes this about Michael Davies.  :cheers:

J.Paul, you contribute many good things [...]
As Columba pointed out to you, and as you admitted to, you want to make a difference in the crisis and "charge" without a plan.

I think we can only start making plans for restoration after calling a truce on certain debates that have gone unresolved for decades, particularly those involving speculation over the degrees of legitimacy that current heresiarchs still retain. These debates are probably not resolvable until obtaining greater understanding of the means by which the hierarchy was compromised. Even if we were able to achieve some debate resolution, our present state of powerlessness would likely prevent taking meaningful action based upon that resolution. In this sense, these debates are merely academic. We must regain some degree of power to acquire the improved vantage point necessary for resolving some of these debates and acting upon said resolutions.

Why do we have no power? Consider that almost every sizable traditionalist organization eventually becomes compromised from within. Is this just a random coincidence or are there hidden forces at work? I submit that the consensus of Catholics 500 years ago that there are such forces was correct. If so, the consensus of modern Catholics that such forces to not exist or, if they do, should not be proactively addressed is false. During the era of the greatest saints, Catholics uniformly believed that an underground, multi-generational network with special powers was constantly working to conquer and destroy their civilization from within. Even the popes of more recent times prior to Vatican II regularly spoke of such things despite their warning falling on deaf ears. This conspiracy, Catholics believed, was coordinated by the "powers and principalities" of Hell and manned by traitors to the human race channeling preternatural "magic" and employing esoteric technology.

Catholics did not shrink against such fearsome power but responded with steady self-confidence, steely courage, and lethal ferocity since they had faith that God is stronger than Satan and that the armies of Heaven are greater allies than those of Hell. Devils cannot overcome Catholics united with each other and the powers of Heaven. However, the evil powers proved very effective at fooling Catholics into voluntarily disarmament and leading them into viny forests of distraction. That is the present situation.

Our army was decimated and scattered. If the remnant regathers and arraigns itself in marshal order, a flood of new recruits would swell the ranks. A core restoration army must consist of those who are 1) Catholic and 2) part of a consensus sufficient for militant cooperation. Catholics who lack militancy, a cooperative spirit, or understanding of the crisis would not be suitable. Agreement on non-obedience toward heresiarchs and no extraordinary conclave for the time being could serve as a working consensus for cooperation between non-dogmatic R&R's and Sede's.

What stops us from forming such an army now? Let us compare qualities of a soldier to a debater. A soldier seeks a squad to join for the purpose of achieving a shared military objective. After finding a squad, he adheres to the common requirements and insists his squad-mates do the same. Since the soldier intuitively understands the principle of strength in numbers, he supports the joining of his squad with others to form a platoon if the combined strength is needed to achieve the military objective. Platoons join to form a company, companies form a battalion, these join to form a regiment, which combines to form a division, which combines to form a corps, and a corps joined with others forms an army. There are no committees, legislative bodies, and few elections. Each soldier is ranked in a natural order according to objective comparison of his qualities to those of the others within his group. A good soldier never wants promotion beyond his ability because that would impede the function of his group to place him and his fellows at risk. The formation of a well-ordered army occurs spontaneously whenever a number of true soldiers find themselves in close proximity and sharing the same military objective.

Now consider the debater. Like the solder, the debater seeks others of his kind but that is to engage them in verbal contention. Even when two debaters in 99.9% agreement, they gravitate toward arguing the 0.1% of issues over which they differ. Upon the rare occasions that a debater finds another with whom he fully agrees, the two may team up only to seek others with whom to dispute. Like the soldier the debater seeks victory but since contest is merely verbal, both sides in a debate can and often do claim victory upon conclusion. When each side insists the other is wrong, they can never join for a common cause. Such debaters, by definition, can never successfully form an army.

Sede and R&R dogmatic debaters challenge us to take a hard position on whether St. Peter's chair is empty or legitimately occupied. If we cannot see an preponderance of evidence sufficient to decide, these dogmatists will accuse us of fence sitting or some heresy of denying objective reality. A debater would then get sucked into an interminable discussion. A soldier would slam such accusers with his rifle butt and exclaim "debate over!"

If the qualities of a soldier were significantly present among trads, they would have already formed armies and racked up victories. They might be engaged in "poaching" against the dioceses like some of the protestants. In order for Catholics to form a restoration army, they must transform themselves from debaters into soldiers. Once a core number of Catholics acquire the soldier mindset, the army will coagulate organically. What is to be the mission of a Catholic army? An army works best when concentrated upon a single objective. Once an objective is completed or advanced, the next mission often comes into view. The first mission of the core army should be develop and promulgate the ethos the Catholic soldier.

It disturbs and refutes the sedevacantist mantra that there is something inconsistent, contradictory, or incoherent in the R&R position, which has caused some people people of a simplistic or legalistic mind-bent to errantly embrace the sedevacantist position.

Okay, fair enough.

Those who are heading down that dead end road because of that alleged incoherent R&R position, if they are honest (and have the intellectual horsepower), will put on the brakes once they understand the "ins and outs" of necessity.

It may stop some. Nevertheless, historically sedevacantism has always boasted some of the heaviest intellectual firepower. Moreover, among younger traditionalists today, I find sedevacantism is not the scarlet letter it was for the previous generation. So I imagine that for most R&R traditionalists headed down the road to sedevacantism, the arguments you quote are for the most part a speedbump only.

Quote from: Columba

I think we can only start making plans for restoration after calling a truce on certain debates that have gone unresolved for decades, particularly those involving speculation over the degrees of legitimacy that current heresiarchs still retain.

I get the feeling that this is where Mgr. Williamson was headed with his newsletter last week in terms of calling for a cooperation between the Resistance and sedevacantism. Except I am not sure the bishop thinks a restoration possible at this point outside of the Parousia.

On another note, a proper regiment is not divided into companies further sub-divided into platoons. A proper regiment is divided into batteries further subdivided into gun detachments.  

Ubique!

...and the same truce could then be offered to the high Anglicans, Orthodox, Polish National Church, etc, depending on the particular issue being opposed.

Tradcuмenism is ecuмenism.

Apparently, the lesson is that we can cooperate with anyone closer to us than the adversary.

Not good.

Quote from: SeanJohnson

...and the same truce could then be offered to the high Anglicans, Orthodox, Polish National Church, etc, depending on the particular issue being opposed.

With regards to the Resistance, I would be shocked if they made common cause with high Anglicans. In over 20 years of being a traditionalist I have come across maybe two traditionalists who disagree or question Apostolicae Curae.

Likewise, I would be very surprised if the Resistance came to a truce with the PNCC--especially since the PNCC accepts many practices that the Resistance objects to within the Novus Ordo, as well as some departures from traditional Catholicism not found in the Novus Ordo.

Orthodoxy? Okay, I see some similarities to ROCOR, Old Calendarists, Russian Old Believers and the Monks of Mount Athos, but a truce or alliance would require their acceptance of the Resistance and sedevacantism, which is unlikely given that they are roughly equivalent of the Resistance within Eastern Orthodoxy.

As for an alliance with mainstream Orthodoxy, I see this as highly unlikely given that Pope Francis has a long history of strong ecuмenical relations with the Eastern Orthodox, to the point that he is probably more well liked among Eastern Orthodox than any Roman Pontiff going back to the Photian schism.  

In contrast, so long as Mgr. Williamson is the Resistance's only bishop, and so long as the Resistance lacks stability and critical mass, I am not sure it can avoid following Mgr. Williamson's entreaty toward an alliance with non-doctrinaire sedevacantism.

Pete-

You are being much too picky!

After all, we resisters are very big on principle!

As defenders of the Trinity, we could all team up against the Jews.

As defenders of priesthood, we could all team up against the Prots.

And as opposers of modernism, we could all team up against Rome (apparently).

This is blatant ecuмenism, no matter how pleased with it the sedes who overrun this site are with Bishop Williamson's long-awaited statement.

They will try to out-do each other praising the wisdom of Bishop Williamson, to encourage him in his slide towards their position.

But none of their Te Deums, appeals to reason (which is quite funny, actually, since they have become solipsists), or defenses will mask the fact that Bishop Williamson (like Bishop Fellay) has expressed a willingness to set aside doctrinal differences to reach a political goal.

For the sake of consistency, I would now expect of them to cease all attacks on Bishop Williamson and Menzingen on that score.

A shame.

PS: Has anyone asked you whether you were sent here to drive deeper the wedge with the resistance?

Quote from: cantatedomino

Quote from: Columba

Man cannot conceive of God's plans, but certainly He wants Catholics doing their utmost to propagate the Faith in this present era, whether or not those efforts will succeed in the short term. So we should work for revival even if success appear humanly impossible.

However, that is not the case. Many, many people besides traditional Catholics have noticed the collapse of Western Civilization and many are seeking leadership for launching a revival. We traditional Catholics, sole inheritors of the core of Western Civilization, hoard our treasure by not filling the leadership vacuum because we are afraid of our own shadows.

I would proffer that the R&R position, coupled with scandalous divides inside the walls of so-called Tradition, contributes, through institutionalized dissimulation, to the overarching pusillanimity which now characterizes our ranks.

Recognize and resist, they say.

Recognize what? Do we see Catholics when we look at them?

Resist what? Are we resisting the Catholic Church?

The biggest problem with R&R is linguistic ambiguity - the mortal sin of the same Council R&R pretends to react to.

Ambiguity does not have to be a sin. Clarity requires a good understanding of the matter under consideration. We rightly abhor the ambiguity of the Vatican II because the modernists have no excuse for obfuscating doctrines that were previously well-defined. However, I have never heard a clear description of how the modernists succeeded in taking over the hierarchy.

What does "taking over the hierarchy" mean? Might that supposition be understood as heretical? What do we mean by the conciliar church? If that is a separate church, should we give up all claims to the properties it inhabits? If it is not an entirely separate church, are we in partial communion. That is not ossible by definition. Should we hope that a traditional pope will one day emerge from a conclave held in the Sistine Chapel or is that equivalent to hoping for a good pope to come from a vote taken in a lodge or a ѕуηαgσgυє?

We do not have all the facts and we do not know the full implications of the facts we have. Defenses of Sedevacantism, R&R, and Ecclesia dei are each necessarily vague because they are responses to certain actions by the masons and churchmen that remain concealed to this day. Even if we knew what happened, the Church has probably never previously defined what a properly orthodox response to the present situation would be. The reason I say probably is because, again, I do not know what happen even though I have heard many wild theories and formulated some of my own.

All this unavoidable confusion underscores why it is futile to continue spinning our wheels in the same ol' trad debates that have immobilized us some forty-odd years. Events that led to the current conciliar church will remain hidden until we have enough clout to demand answers and docuмents from whatever-it-is that currently occupies our historic buildings. A sustained, aggressive, united effort by trads to take away the conciliar faithful would certainly bear fruit. That would give us clout to demand answers. That would give us sympathizers and spies within the belly of the beast.

We have continent-conquering power of the True Faith. All they have is weak gruel combined with never-ending scandal. It is nukes against pea shooters. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel. It is almost not fair to them... except that we sit quivering in a corner, imagining that all sorts of persecution is about to rain down upon us... any minute now.

Edit