Author Topic: Bishop Tissier de Mallerais Asserts His Apostolic Succession (Read 2980 times)

Clemens Maria · « **on:** December 23, 2013, 03:34:52 PM »

From July 2013 issue of Catholic Family News (p.6) quoting Bishop Tissier's Pentecost 2013 Sermon: "And finally we represent Apostolicity of the Church! The Church is Apostolic, we are also apostolic. That means we have the apostolic succession through our bishops. We, bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X, have received the episcopate from the hands of Archbishop Lefebvre in a legitimate way, even if it was abnormal."

My comment: I believe he is correct. The SSPX has all 4 marks of the Church. I believe many sede vacantists have all 4 marks of the Church although those bishops who received consecration from schismatic bishops do not have apostolicity, those who received consecration from Catholic bishops do. The Conciliar Church does not have the 4 marks. Their episcopal consecrations are doubtful and certainly they do not have apostolicity of doctrine nor do they have holiness. So the Church endures not through the Conciliar Church but through the adherents of the traditional doctrines of the Church who have apostolic succession. The entire Conciliar Church structure has defected from the Faith.

Which is precisely why I believe traditionalists have the obligation to elect a pope.

Sorry Nishant, I have been going back and forth on this issue. I'm still not 100% sure but I think I'm on the right track. I've been reading Van Noort and some of the things he is saying seem to contradict your positions. Specifically, (p. 276 Dogmatic Theology Volume II Christ's Church, G. Van Noort, STD, 1959 Newman Press):

Corrollary. The imperishability of the Roman See

Quote

The above teaching on the complete inseparability of the primacy from the see of Rome involves the imperishability of that episcopal see and consequently of the Roman Church. Be sure, however, not to confuse the city of Rome taken in a purely physical sense with the Roman Church itself, i.e., the faithful of that region united with their bishop. The imperishability of the Roman Church, then means simply this one thing: God will see to it that there will never be completely lacking in or from* that region a group of the faithful united to their bishop.

* We add the alternative preposition from because it does not seem inconceivable in this nuclear age that hydrogen bombs might some day so lay waste to Rome and its surrounding territory that it would be impossible for the faithful of the Roman Church to dwell in that region. Even in such an hypothesis, if the bishop of Rome and a remnant of his flock were living in exile in London or New York, the Roman Church would still be in existence despite the obliteration of its familiar physical landmarks.

My comment: He says nothing about any priests. So if there are a few laymen left attached to the Bishop of Rome (the office, not just the man) then the Roman Church has not defected. If the pope dies, then a new pope will have to be elected but nevertheless the Roman Church has not defected. I accept that teaching. It makes sense. In any case it doesn't require anyone with ordinary jurisdiction to be attached to the see of Rome at all times.

I can't find the page now but there was another place where I found that Van Noort said that there has been an "uninterrupted" series of successors of Peter. Which obviously he doesn't mean that there was never an interregnum. He also says that the successors of the apostles are not determined by a physical chain of succession where the Apostle laid his hands on his successor and the successor laid his hands on his own successor, etc. Rather they are successors collectively by their membership in the college of bishops. That really seems to be in opposition to any claim that there must always and everywhere be at least one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction. Even a parish priest has ordinary jurisdiction for confessions so it seems arbitrary to insist that in order for the 4 marks to be preserved there must always be at least one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction in existence. I don't see how the lack of a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction causes the Church to lose the mark of apostolicity. Given Bishop Tissier's Pentecost Sermon I believe he must be thinking the same thing as me. If he has Apostolic Succession despite not having ordinary jurisdiction then the 4 marks are preserved and the Church endures even if the entire Conciliar Church structure defects.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #1 on:** December 23, 2013, 03:40:33 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

From July 2013 issue of Catholic Family News (p.6) quoting Bishop Tissier's Pentecost 2013 Sermon: "And finally we represent Apostolicity of the Church! The Church is Apostolic, we are also apostolic. That means we have the apostolic succession through our bishops. We, bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X, have received the episcopate from the hands of Archbishop Lefebvre in a legitimate way, even if it was abnormal."

My comment: I believe he is correct. The SSPX has all 4 marks of the Church. I believe many sede vacantists have all 4 marks of the Church although those bishops who received consecration from schismatic bishops do not have apostolicity, those who received consecration from Catholic bishops do. The Conciliar Church does not have the 4 marks. Their episcopal consecrations are doubtful and certainly they do not have apostolicity of doctrine nor do they have holiness. So the Church endures not through the Conciliar Church but through the adherents of the traditional doctrines of the Church who have apostolic succession. The entire Conciliar Church structure has defected from the Faith.

Which is precisely why I believe traditionalists have the obligation to elect a pope.

Sorry Nishant, I have been going back and forth on this issue. I'm still not 100% sure but I think I'm on the right track. I've been reading Van Noort and some of the things he is saying seem to contradict your positions. Specifically, (p. 276 Dogmatic Theology Volume II Christ's Church, G. Van Noort, STD, 1959 Newman Press):

Corrollary. The imperishability of the Roman See
Quote
The above teaching on the complete inseparability of the primacy from the see of Rome involves the imperishability of that episcopal see and consequently of the Roman Church. Be sure, however, not to confuse the city of Rome taken in a purely physical sense with the Roman Church itself, i.e., the faithful of that region united with their bishop. The imperishability of the Roman Church, then means simply this one thing: God will see to it that there will never be completely lacking in or from* that region a group of the faithful united to their bishop.

* We add the alternative preposition from because it does not seem inconceivable in this nuclear age that hydrogen bombs might some day so lay waste to Rome and its surrounding territory that it would be impossible for the faithful of the Roman Church to dwell in that region. Even in such an hypothesis, if the bishop of Rome and a remnant of his flock were living in exile in London or New York, the Roman Church would still be in existence despite the obliteration of its familiar physical landmarks.

My comment: He says nothing about any priests. So if there are a few laymen left attached to the Bishop of Rome (the office, not just the man) then the Roman Church has not defected. If the pope dies, then a new pope will have to be elected but nevertheless the Roman Church has not defected. I accept that teaching. It makes sense. In any case it doesn't require anyone with ordinary jurisdiction to be attached to the see of Rome at all times.

I can't find the page now but there was another place where I found that Van Noort said that there has been an "uninterrupted" series of successors of Peter. Which obviously he doesn't mean that there was never an interregnum. He also says that the successors of the apostles are not determined by a physical chain of succession where the Apostle laid his hands on his successor and the successor laid his hands on his own successor, etc. Rather they are successors collectively by their membership in the college of bishops. That really seems to be in opposition to any claim that there must always and everywhere be at least one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction. Even a parish priest has ordinary jurisdiction for confessions so it seems arbitrary to insist that in order for the 4 marks to be preserved there must always be at least one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction in existence. I don't see how the lack of a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction causes the Church to lose the mark of apostolicity. Given Bishop Tissier's Pentecost Sermon I believe he must be thinking the same thing as me. If he has Apostolic Succession despite not having ordinary jurisdiction then the 4 marks are preserved and the Church endures even if the entire Conciliar Church structure defects.

Wrong:

The SSPX bishops only possess "material apostolicity" (i.e., episcopal continuity).

They do not possess "formal apostolicity" (i.e., jurisdiction).

For a good treatment of this topic see the Catholic Encyclopedia under the heading "Apostolicity."

Ambrose · « **Reply #2 on:** December 23, 2013, 04:17:50 PM »

CM,

I hope your interpretation of the bishop's words is not correct. If Bp. Tissier is claiming to be a successor of the Apostles, that is a radical change in thinking and possibly a schismatic act.

I hope someone will write him to clarify this.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #3 on:** December 23, 2013, 04:32:14 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Clemens Maria
From July 2013 issue of Catholic Family News (p.6) quoting Bishop Tissier's Pentecost 2013 Sermon: "And finally we represent Apostolicity of the Church! The Church is Apostolic, we are also apostolic. That means we have the apostolic succession through our bishops. We, bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X, have received the episcopate from the hands of Archbishop Lefebvre in a legitimate way, even if it was abnormal."

My comment: I believe he is correct. The SSPX has all 4 marks of the Church. I believe many sede vacantists have all 4 marks of the Church although those bishops who received consecration from schismatic bishops do not have apostolicity, those who received consecration from Catholic bishops do. The Conciliar Church does not have the 4 marks. Their episcopal consecrations are doubtful and certainly they do not have apostolicity of doctrine nor do they have holiness. So the Church endures not through the Conciliar Church but through the adherents of the traditional doctrines of the Church who have apostolic succession. The entire Conciliar Church structure has defected from the Faith.

Which is precisely why I believe traditionalists have the obligation to elect a pope.

Sorry Nishant, I have been going back and forth on this issue. I'm still not 100% sure but I think I'm on the right track. I've been reading Van Noort and some of the things he is saying seem to contradict your positions. Specifically, (p. 276 Dogmatic Theology Volume II Christ's Church, G. Van Noort, STD, 1959 Newman Press):

Corrollary. The imperishability of the Roman See
Quote
The above teaching on the complete inseparability of the primacy from the see of Rome involves the imperishability of that episcopal see and consequently of the Roman Church. Be sure, however, not to confuse the city of Rome taken in a purely physical sense with the Roman Church itself, i.e., the faithful of that region united with their bishop. The imperishability of the Roman Church, then means simply this one thing: God will see to it that there will never be completely lacking in or from* that region a group of the faithful united to their bishop.

* We add the alternative preposition from because it does not seem inconceivable in this nuclear age that hydrogen bombs might some day so lay waste to Rome and its surrounding territory that it would be impossible for the faithful of the Roman Church to dwell in that region. Even in such an hypothesis, if the bishop of Rome and a remnant of his flock were living in exile in London or New York, the Roman Church would still be in existence despite the obliteration of its familiar physical landmarks.

My comment: He says nothing about any priests. So if there are a few laymen left attached to the Bishop of Rome (the office, not just the man) then the Roman Church has not defected. If the pope dies, then a new pope will have to be elected but nevertheless the Roman Church has not defected. I accept that teaching. It makes sense. In any case it doesn't require anyone with ordinary jurisdiction to be attached to the see of Rome at all times.

I can't find the page now but there was another place where I found that Van Noort said that there has been an "uninterrupted" series of successors of Peter. Which obviously he doesn't mean that there was never an interregnum. He also says that the successors of the apostles are not determined by a physical chain of succession where the Apostle laid his hands on his successor and the successor laid his hands on his own successor, etc. Rather they are successors collectively by their membership in the college of bishops. That really seems to be in opposition to any claim that there must always and everywhere be at least one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction. Even a parish priest has ordinary jurisdiction for confessions so it seems arbitrary to insist that in order for the 4 marks to be preserved there must always be at least one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction in existence. I don't see how the lack of a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction causes the Church to lose the mark of apostolicity. Given Bishop Tissier's Pentecost Sermon I believe he must be thinking the same thing as me. If he has Apostolic Succession despite not having ordinary jurisdiction then the 4 marks are preserved and the Church endures even if the entire Conciliar Church structure defects.

Wrong:

The SSPX bishops only possess "material apostolicity" (i.e., episcopal continuity).

They do not possess "formal apostolicity" (i.e., jurisdiction).

For a good treatment of this topic see the Catholic Encyclopedia under the heading "Apostolicity."

Bishop Tissier obviously disagrees with you. He says clearly that he has APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. You don't have that unless you are sent (i.e. you have apostolicity of mission).

Pete Vere · « **Reply #4 on:** December 23, 2013, 04:40:56 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Which is precisely why I believe traditionalists have the obligation to elect a pope.

Allow me to preface my comment by stating traditionalists already have a Pope, namely, Pope Francis who succeeded Pope Benedict XVI at the last conclave. (I know some following this thread disagree, but I am restating the point so that it is clear to anyone who may come across this thread in the future. I do NOT in real life question the validity of Pope Francis' pontificate).

That being said, for the sake of the argument only, I will [b]pretend[/b] to be sedevacantist in order to address your argument:

The difficulty with the "conclavacantist" position has always been its practical application. It is not sufficient for a group of traditionalists to elect a pope. The pope elect must also be universally recognized and accepted throughout the Church (or at least a large portion of the Church) as the legitimate successor to St. Peter.

One need look no further than "Pope" Michael of Kansas. Or "Pope" Pius Pulvermacher of the Montana trailer park (with apologies to the ladies following this thread, one wonders whether his papal throne contained one holes or two). Neither could find a bishop among the vast number Archbishop Thuc's lineage and others to consecrate these "popes" to the episcopate.

Under this scenario (again, I recognize Francis as a valid pope, therefore I am arguing "for the sake of the argument") if the FSSPX under Mgr Fellay were to adopt a conclavist position and convince the majority of its associates and faithful to elect him Pope Marcel, then such a pope might have a legitimate claim.

Of course, in real life, I do not believe that Mgr. Fellay would ever go down this road, and if he did, I believe the two other bishops as well as the other FSSPX superiors would put an end to this silliness before the laity caught wind of the plan. I believe the FSSPX euphemism is that he would find himself "re-assigned" from Superior General to chaplain of the FSSPX retirement home near Levis, Quebec.

But I digress. Basically, the main weakness of conclavism is the decentralized nature of sedevacantism and its various offshoots. One simply could not elect a pope that would be universally recognized and accepted as pope within such a decentralized movement.

This is why among the various theories that come under the umbrella of sedevacantism, I always considered conclavism the weakest. At least until a couple weeks ago when Fr. Kramer introduced the world to sedebenedictplenism. These two sub-theories of sedevacantism (along with Sirivacantism) are the three exceptions I make when I state that I find the sedevacantist stronger than the R&R position.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #5 on:** December 23, 2013, 08:29:24 PM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: Clemens Maria
Which is precisely why I believe traditionalists have the obligation to elect a pope.

Allow me to preface my comment by stating traditionalists already have a Pope, namely, Pope Francis who succeeded Pope Benedict XVI at the last conclave. (I know some following this thread disagree, but I am restating the point so that it is clear to anyone who may come across this thread in the future. I do NOT in real life question the validity of Pope Francis' pontificate).

That being said, for the sake of the argument only, I will [b]pretend[/b] to be sedevacantist in order to address your argument:

The difficulty with the "conclavacantist" position has always been its practical application. It is not sufficient for a group of traditionalists to elect a pope. The pope elect must also be universally recognized and accepted throughout the Church (or at least a large portion of the Church) as the legitimate successor to St. Peter.

One need look no further than "Pope" Michael of Kansas. Or "Pope" Pius Pulvermacher of the Montana trailer park (with apologies to the ladies following this thread, one wonders whether his papal throne contained one holes or two). Neither could find a bishop among the vast number Archbishop Thuc's lineage and others to consecrate these "popes" to the episcopate.

Under this scenario (again, I recognize Francis as a valid pope, therefore I am arguing "for the sake of the argument") if the FSSPX under Mgr Fellay were to adopt a conclavist position and convince the majority of its associates and faithful to elect him Pope Marcel, then such a pope might have a legitimate claim.

Of course, in real life, I do not believe that Mgr. Fellay would ever go down this road, and if he did, I believe the two other bishops as well as the other FSSPX superiors would put an end to this silliness before the laity caught wind of the plan. I believe the FSSPX euphemism is that he would find himself "re-assigned" from Superior General to chaplain of the FSSPX retirement home near Levis, Quebec.

But I digress. Basically, the main weakness of conclavism is the decentralized nature of sedevacantism and its various offshoots. One simply could not elect a pope that would be universally recognized and accepted as pope within such a decentralized movement.

This is why among the various theories that come under the umbrella of sedevacantism, I always considered conclavism the weakest. At least until a couple weeks ago when Fr. Kramer introduced the world to sedebenedictplenism. These two sub-theories of sedevacantism (along with Sirivacantism) are the three exceptions I make when I state that I find the sedevacantist stronger than the R&R position.

I pretty much agree with everything you have said except that I don't necessarily agree that Francis has a legitimate claim to the papacy. I also don't agree that the pope needs to be UNIVERSALLY accepted. Not even Francis is universally accepted. I don't even think the next pope needs to be universally recognized by traditionalists. But I completely agree that there must be a widespread acceptance if he is to have any credibility at all. But that acceptance doesn't have to come immediately either. It could come gradually over time as more and more people realize that he is actually being faithful to the traditions which Christ gave to the Apostles and which were passed on to us through the centuries. Or it could come dramatically through a miracle (possibly through the consecration of Russia and subsequent conversion of that nation). But there must be some kind of initial consensus to get things off the ground. It would have to begin with a real conclave or some kind of council-like meeting (not ecuмenical because only a pope can call that). And it would have to have the participation of a wide swath of the traditionalist milieu. Almost all the previous "popes" were either not elected or they were elected in some kind of sham election which was not representative of the whole Church. I think traditionalists, if they were willing to set aside their non-doctrinal differences could elect a credible pope.

The interesting thing is that even if Francis is the pope, a traditionalist election would not necessarily be invalid. "The official list of popes has an overlap of over a year between the time Eugene was elected and Martin died in exile, during which time there were two legitimate popes." (Behind Locked Doors, A History of the Papal Elections, Frederic J Baumgartner, Palgrave MacMillan, 2003) According to The Catholic Dictionary Rev Peter Stravinskas, OSV, 2002:

74. St. Martin I (July 649 - Sept 16, 655 [exiled June 17, 655])
75. St. Eugenius I (Aug 10 654 - June 2, 657)

So if there was a legitimate reason to do so, it is even possible to elect a new pope while there is already a pope reigning. Can any sane traditionalist deny that we have a legitimate reason to elect a replacement for Francis?

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #6 on:** December 23, 2013, 08:38:19 PM »

Why is it that the simple ancients had so much more common sense than we moderns with all our access to knowledge?

Pete Vere · « **Reply #7 on:** December 23, 2013, 09:11:14 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

I pretty much agree with everything you have said except that I don't necessarily agree that Francis has a legitimate claim to the papacy. I also don't agree that the pope needs to be UNIVERSALLY accepted. Not even Francis is universally accepted.

By universal in this context, one is speaking broadly rather than totally. There is no exact formula (as 75 percent = universal, but 75 percent minus one lacks universally). Rather it is simply something understood by the most Catholics. Which is why even during the time of the Great Western Schism when there were multiple credible claimants, and even saints disagreed to who the true pope was, universality was still in existence.

Universality does not mean one receives an alleged vision of the Blessed Mother anointing one pope in St Jovite's, Quebec, despite living a secret life as scandalous as that of the founder of the Legion of the Christ.

Universality does mean that upon leaving the FSSPX seminary, one gather a handful of cousins in Maw and Paw's kitchen and have oneself elected Pope.

And universality most certainly does not mean that one rule from one's pontifical outhouse in the backwoods of Montana, unrecognized by any traditionalist bishop within the rest of the country, and unknown to traditionalist clergy (and 99.99 percent of laity) in the rest of the world.

Thus theoretical and doctrinal considerations aside, conclavism fails purely on its practical application.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #8 on:** December 23, 2013, 09:23:22 PM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Thus theoretical and doctrinal considerations aside, conclavism fails purely on its practical application.

That could change.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #9 on:** December 23, 2013, 10:25:24 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Wrong:

The SSPX bishops only possess "material apostolicity" (i.e., episcopal continuity).

They do not possess "formal apostolicity" (i.e., jurisdiction).

For a good treatment of this topic see the Catholic Encyclopedia under the heading "Apostolicity."

Yeah, I just finished reading that article. Thanks for reminding me of it. I think that is the second time I've read it. But I'm still trying to wrap my head around this concept and how it applies to the present situation in the Church. Apostolicity also requires apostolicity of doctrine (see Van Noort) and the Conciliar Church definitely does not have that. Van Noort also talks about Apostolicity of membership which I think is also doubtful for the Conciliar Church especially if you consider that the rite of episcopal consecration is doubtful.

"Apostolicity of doctrine and mission is necessary." - Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm)

So if the Conciliar Church doesn't have apostolicity of doctrine and the traditional bishops don't have apostolicity of mission something has got to give because the Church cannot defect. Either the Conciliar Church bishops have apostolicity of doctrine or at least some traditional bishops have apostolicity of mission. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the concept here. Van Noort also talks about apostolic succession in terms of the college of bishops having it collectively rather than some kind of physical succession which can be docuмented. So maybe if you have membership in the college of bishops you participate in the apostolic succession somehow even if you don't actually have ordinary jurisdiction at the moment. I don't know. I don't think these concepts have been sufficiently developed to make a clear application to the current situation. But I don't think any of this is an obstacle to satisfying the desire of Catholics to have a Catholic pope by means of an election.

Ambrose · « **Reply #10 on:** December 23, 2013, 11:13:30 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Quote from: SeanJohnson
Wrong:

The SSPX bishops only possess "material apostolicity" (i.e., episcopal continuity).

They do not possess "formal apostolicity" (i.e., jurisdiction).

For a good treatment of this topic see the Catholic Encyclopedia under the heading "Apostolicity."

Yeah, I just finished reading that article. Thanks for reminding me of it. I think that is the second time I've read it. But I'm still trying to wrap my head around this concept and how it applies to the present situation in the Church. Apostolicity also requires apostolicity of doctrine (see Van Noort) and the Conciliar Church definitely does not have that. Van Noort also talks about Apostolicity of membership which I think is also doubtful for the Conciliar Church especially if you consider that the rite of episcopal consecration is doubtful.

"Apostolicity of doctrine and mission is necessary." - Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm)

So if the Conciliar Church doesn't have apostolicity of doctrine and the traditional bishops don't have apostolicity of mission something has got to give because the Church cannot defect. Either the Conciliar Church bishops have apostolicity of doctrine or at least some traditional bishops have apostolicity of mission. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the concept here. Van Noort also talks about apostolic succession in terms of the college of bishops having it collectively rather than some kind of physical succession which can be docuмented. So maybe if you have membership in the college of bishops you participate in the apostolic succession somehow even if you don't actually have ordinary jurisdiction at the moment. I don't know. I don't think these concepts have been sufficiently developed to make a clear application to the current situation. But I don't think any of this is an obstacle to satisfying the desire of Catholics to have a Catholic pope by means of an election.

CM,

The bishops appointed by Pope Pius XII, and there are some still alive, most certainly have a mission from the Church. There is no proof that I am aware of against any of them that they have defected from the Faith.

It seems reasonable to also apply this principle to the bishops of John XXIII. John XXIII may be guilty of being a bad pope, but there is no proof that he was a public heretic.

Things begin to get more complicated with Paul VI. But for arguments sake, at least for this discussion, we can be certain that the hierarchy exists with all of the Pius XII and John XXIII bishops who have kept the Faith.

I agree with you completely in your observation that the Conciliar Church and its "Popes" lack Apostolicity of doctrine. As it lacks this mark, we can be certain that the Church is not found with them.

The Church today lives on with all of those Catholics who have kept the Faith and submit to the laws of the Church. The hierarchy lives on with all of the bishops who have a mission from the Church who have kept the Faith. Adherence to the antipopes is not proof of heresy.

The Church has shrunk in size, but it's essentials have remained intact through the crisis, the hierarchy and the laity exist today and have always been present through the entire crisis.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #11 on:** December 26, 2013, 03:42:00 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

The bishops appointed by Pope Pius XII, and there are some still alive, most certainly have a mission from the Church. There is no proof that I am aware of against any of them that they have defected from the Faith.

It seems reasonable to also apply this principle to the bishops of John XXIII. John XXIII may be guilty of being a bad pope, but there is no proof that he was a public heretic.

Things begin to get more complicated with Paul VI. But for arguments sake, at least for this discussion, we can be certain that the hierarchy exists with all of the Pius XII and John XXIII bishops who have kept the Faith.

I agree with you completely in your observation that the Conciliar Church and its "Popes" lack Apostolicity of doctrine. As it lacks this mark, we can be certain that the Church is not found with them.

The Church today lives on with all of those Catholics who have kept the Faith and submit to the laws of the Church. The hierarchy lives on with all of the bishops who have a mission from the Church who have kept the Faith. Adherence to the antipopes is not proof of heresy.

The Church has shrunk in size, but it's essentials have remained intact through the crisis, the hierarchy and the laity exist today and have always been present through the entire crisis.

I think the situation with Catholic clergy (bishops and priests) who adhere to the Conciliar Church is tricky. I think you are right that adherence to the antipopes is not proof of heresy but I do think those clergy have been fooled into adhering to a schism. Which I suppose could be viewed similarly to what happened during the Great Western Schism. They are wrong but they are not culpable. On the otherhand, all the sacraments on all sides of the Great Western Schism were valid and even in most cases eventually found to be licit. But in the case of the Conciliar Church the sacraments are at best doubtful. So that is a huge issue. When this schism is resolved, I believe the NO sacraments will be found to be lacking validity and therefore it will not be as easy to heal this situation as it was to heal the GWS. I'm not sure how the lack of good sacraments will effect the status of NO clergy (even those who were ordained in the old rite). How can you remain in good standing (even if you are a valid priest) if you are giving bad sacraments?

hugeman · « **Reply #12 on:** December 26, 2013, 06:06:11 PM »

Unfortunately, this gang of theologically challenged people running the SSPX couldn't elect anybody a pope, and neither could they even participate in the election. As Father LeRoux, the Rector of St Thomas Aquinas Seminary stated in 2012 at the Auriesville, Pilgrimmage, "Our priests get their mission from the local ordinaries" (of the dioceses).
So, we have the SSPX Bishops, supposedly ordaining SSPX "priests" AGAINST the explicit command of their pope, AND the local ordinaries; yet their educator-in-chief maintains they get their mission from those same ordinaries!!
Now, those "local ordinaries" all report through "Cardinal" Mueller, an appointee of both Ratzinger and Francis. What is "Card" Mueller's position? It is thatt all the SSPX bishops are excommunicated, materially excommunicated, and have absolutely NO FUNCTION in the "Catholic" church. SSPX "priests" claim they are "Catholic", they claim to be "under Francis, their pope", their Leaders profess they receive their apostolic mission from "the local ordinaries", yet the "Local ordinaries, united with Mueller, the " College of Cardinals", and "pope" Francis, deny knowing of them ( the SSPX bishops and priests), deny they are even in the "catholic" faith, and assuredly proclaim they have NO MISSION>
So, Msgr Tissier can claim all he wants that he has an apostolic origin to his episcopacy--problem is, if he ever did have it ( under Archbishop Lefebvre), he LOST it by adopting the false faith of the infidels in Rome-- which he adopted by endorsing Fellay's grand scheme to slide into Rome under an agreement with Ratzinger. As quoted above, the Archbishop instructed deMallerais that Ratzinger LOST THE FAITH, AND HIS SUPPOSED OFFICE, when he espoused "that which is not the truth of the Catholic faith."
When he was still alive, Archbishop Lefebvre declared that ( then Cardinal) Ratzinger was not even a Catholic, but that he was for " the destruction of Christian civilization."
Why do so many writers insist on splitting the hairs, and trying to divine whether Francis is pope or Ratzinger is still pope, or whether the enemies in Rome are Catholic. Weren't you instructed that "whoever preaches a gospel different from that which I gave you --let him be anathema!" Anathema is total excommunication-- total exclusion from the Christian community-- separation from the Body of Christ.

When the Jєωs wanted to murder Jesus Christ, they had their agents ask Him directly "Thou sayest it!" He responded . What was their reaction???
" What have we need for further witesses? Don't you hear what He says Himself?" Yet you won't listen to your founder as he proclaimed a condemnation upon Ratzinger; you won't listen to your founder as he taught that a "pope" would cease to be pope when he teaches heresy; you want to keep playing with the devil, and parse all the words, to find a way to wiggle back into this perverted Rome with Fellay and Krah-- who are working mightily to destroy the Catholic faith.

This circuitous reasoning ( of SSPX apologists) leads logically right into Fellay's hands: Let's make a deal time! Thats why Fellay had a Novus Ordo "Bishop" confirm SSPX children at the Paris Church of the SSPX; That's why the SSPX "trains" Novus Ordo "presbyters" to "say" the Tridentine Mass, and invites them into SSPX chapels and schools; and that's why Fellay and his stooges have to kick out any SSPX priests who try to hold the line with the Archbishop Lefebvre, and resist the Novus Ordo, the Vatican Council, and the Conciliar Church.
Fellay's AFD Declaration said everything that needed to be said: He was a Novus Ordo "catholic" through and through. Sure, they have some good priests, still respected and still knowledgeable enough to write traditionally, who will continue to fool and deceive the elect. But if tomorrow morning Francis told Mueller to "call off the dogs and get an agreement", Fellay and his Isreali-loving handlers would be back in Rome quicker than a cat's meow-- and this time they won't allow any leaks until the dastardly deed in signed, sealed and delivered!

OHCA · « **Reply #13 on:** December 26, 2013, 11:26:25 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Quote from: Pete Vere
Thus theoretical and doctrinal considerations aside, conclavism fails purely on its practical application.

That could change.

If you're not a naive 13 year old, then you're as crazy as Pope Michael I (or worse). You're trying to have a pope in your time rather than acquiescing to God's will and trusting Him. God will give us a good true pope according to His plan--not because WE would like to have one.

How do you think this conclave should be pulled off, O Wise One? Does everybody get to vote? If not, who will the electors be? Who picks the electors?

4 Marks? Wouldn't you say that 70+% of traditional Catholics believe Francis is the pope? What is going to do to the mark of ONE?

You're another one who would do well to read and learn rather than try to teach and enlighten.

How arrogant of you to think that there has not been a "conclave" just because everybody but you is too dumb!!

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #14 on:** December 27, 2013, 12:08:53 AM »

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: Clemens Maria
Quote from: Pete Vere
Thus theoretical and doctrinal considerations aside, conclavism fails purely on its practical application.

That could change.

If you're not a naive 13 year old, then you're as crazy as Pope Michael I (or worse). You're trying to have a pope in your time rather than acquiescing to God's will and trusting Him. God will give us a good true pope according to His plan--not because WE would like to have one.

How do you think this conclave should be pulled off, O Wise One? Does everybody get to vote? If not, who will the electors be? Who picks the electors?

4 Marks? Wouldn't you say that 70+% of traditional Catholics believe Francis is the pope? What is going to do to the mark of ONE?

You're another one who would do well to read and learn rather than try to teach and enlighten.

How arrogant of you to think that there has not been a "conclave" just because everybody but you is too dumb!!

Can you imagine the ridicule that the Conciliar Church "Cardinals" would undergo if they took your position? Can you imagine a bunch of Cardinals sitting around waiting for God to give them a good true pope according to His plan--not because THEY (the Cardinals) would like to have one? Now that really would be asinine! When God gives us a means to obtain a good true pope we better well make use of those means or we will be calling down God's wrath on ourselves. But God has given us a means to obtain a pope. It's called a papal election. Only Catholics can participate. Conciliar heretics have no right to be pretending to elect popes. Only those Catholic clergy who have kept the Faith have the right to elect a pope. And they better get to it or God is going to bring his wrath down on us. The next Catholic pope is going to have to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and thereby bring about the conversion of Russia and a period of peace for the whole world.