Capt. McQuiqq,

Lack of clarity does not always mean the writer has a deceptive agenda.  I have read perfectly orthodox books and articles that read as if you were wading through a bog.  It just means the authors are not the most effective communicators.

Fr. L., BW, and ABL are virtually saying the same thing.  The problems with the article are twofold:

1.  Fr. L. attributes to BW beliefs about the Church which simply do not belong to him;

2.  Fr. L. then insinuates, using ABL, that because the pope is not requesting anything intrinsically "wrong", we should therefore yield to his desire for "reconciliation".

In a nutshell, the errors of Fr. L's rebuttal are false attribution and insinuation (of an agenda).

Quote from: Nathan

Ambrose,

I believe the reason your link has received disapproval is because of Mr. Lane's strong opinions, in particular, his ideas about the hierarchy and the visibility of the Church.  I personally do not entirely agree with Mr. Lane's assessment, and as I do not know your thoughts on the matter, I invite you to advance them for discussion.

A blessed Christmas to you!

I believe his defense of Bishop Fellay is the reason why he isn't well-liked here.

I understand.  I think though that readers on here should know that John Lane is a deeply sincere man who forms his judgment based on the evidence available to him.  

Some may strongly disagree with him on this, but ultimately, this disagreement is one of judgment of facts, not about the Faith.  Catholics on either side, those that remain with the SSPX under Bp. Fellay or those laity who are supporting the clergy who have left can surely be of good faith, and are doing what they can to keep their Faith during this crisis.

For myself, I have not attended SSPX in some years, but I still do care what happens to them.  They are the largest and best organized group of Catholics in the world, and I hope that in the end the large body of the SSPX, those still under Bp. Fellay will recognize the true state of affairs in the Church, recognize that the men they have been negotiating with cannot be popes, and the path out of this crisis in the Church will be through the mechanism that the Church has given us for a lawful election of a Pope.  

As for the smaller group that has broken from the Society, I greatly admire them in that they have put the Faith first above all.  I can only imagine the stress they have been under, wanting to remain in the Society and loyal to the Society, but seeing the grave danger of these negotiations with heretics, they in my view had no choice but to act.

Ambrose,

I believe the reason your link has received disapproval is because of Mr. Lane's strong opinions, in particular, his ideas about the hierarchy and the visibility of the Church.  I personally do not entirely agree with Mr. Lane's assessment, and as I do not know your thoughts on the matter, I invite you to advance them for discussion.

A blessed Christmas to you!

A blessed Christmas to you as well.

I think the stronger reaction to John Lane on here may be due to his defense of Bishop Fellay rather than his defense of the Church's teaching that the hierarchy must be present and visible until the end of the world.

The only challenge to John Lane on this point has been Fr. Cekada.   They had a vigorous public debate on Ignis Ardens found here:  http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?s=ee961f76ef92d5f8b4d9b880f76dfa3b&showtopic=10336&st=0

Since you asked, my thoughts on the matter are this:

1.  The hierarchy is essential to the Church.
2.  The hierarchy can never disappear from the earth, although they can be greatly reduced in number.  
3.  The Church has never taught that there is any definite number of bishops required, so it is possible that the Church could exist with any number of bishops even just one.
4.  The traditional bishops are not members of the hierarchy.  They have not been sent by a Pope.  They all know this, SSPX, CMRI, SSPV, etc.  None of them make the claim that they have habitual jurisdiction.  All of them know they have not been sent by a Pope.  
5.  So, then, one may ask, who are the members of the hierarchy?  They are those bishops lawfully appointed by a Pope who have kept the Faith.  This fact is certain as bishops cannot lose their jurisdiction except for very specific reasons.
6.  They can certainly be the remaining bishops appointed by Pius XII, and in my view this number may include the bishops appointed by John XXIII.
7.  A strong argument can be made, and this has been put forth by John Lane, which states that due to common error, the act of appointment by an anti-pope to a see may be supplied by the Church if it were for the good of souls.  This may be especially true of certain Eastern Catholic bishops who may still have the Faith, are validly consecrated and hold jurisdiction over Catholics in their respective Eastern Rite churches.
8.  The hierarchy may be more obscure in our times, but they are visible.  It is possible to identify them.  They are less visible than in 1950, but they remain visible.  They can be found with some effort.  There was a time in the world when the Pope and all of the bishops of the world were in hiding from the public view, but the Church still remained visible.  

Thanks for the IA link.

Fr. C and Mr. Lane do a great job of pointing out how each other's theories are unworkable.

One is therefore left with two alternatives.

1.) The Church has failed

2.) BXVI is the Pope and current bishops are valid with jurisdiction.

The sedevacantist thesis is indeed obscured at present.

Very obscured.

Fr. C and Mr. Lane's exchange shows the depths to which this thesis leads Catholics: debating whose private interpretation is correct on an Internet message board proof texting each other with quotes from theologians to do so. It was like watching two Prots go at it. Complete and utter confusion. Is this the fruit of the Church The Lord left us to lead us into all Truth? Lane and Fr. C arguing on IA.

I must say one thing re: Fr. C. It sure takes some brass to call out the other guy's theory for lacking a visible Church when your own theory is worse in that regard. I'm surprised nobody called him on it.

This is what happens when we jump to false conclusions. BW at least has one thing right. BXVI is the pope. The alternative is the ridiculous notion that the universal Church has given consent to 5 men being pope for over 50+ years in complete error. Even this statement is an impossibility as a pope is valid even after an irregular election with the consent of the rest of the Church. ABL even recognized this. If we at least start from the obvious - we have a visible Church - we won't go down such fruitless and absurd blind alleys.

There's no point having a visible Church if it is no longer Catholic.

In case of necessity, jurisdiction will be supplied as it is needed.

It seems to me that jurisdiction is a much more difficult concept to grasp
than the visibility of the Church is.

I know several trads who have no problem with the visibility issue, and
they go around proclaiming that the Church must be visible because
so-and-so said so.  But when you try to talk to them about jurisdiction,
they go mute and usually try to change the topic.  

And then all you have to say is the phrase, "supplied jurisdiction," and
the whole room shuts up.  It's like a skunk at a lawn party.  

Speaking of which, how does this pertain to what Fr. Laisney said about
+W's ecclesiology?  

And FWIW, now that +W is on the receiving end of Fr. Laisney's poisoned
pen, maybe he can appreciate now what it was like for Fr. Leonard
Feeney who received similar badmouthing from Fr. L. in the past.  Of
course, Fr. L. is not above actively participating with Novus Ordo
liturgies, is he?  Let's all agree that "we're near a light bulb," that is,
unless you're Fr. Hector Bolduc, Fr. Leonard Feeney or Bishop Richard
Williamson!  

One fine day, their names will be cleared, but in the meantime, John XXIII
and JPII are called "Blessed," and Paul VI is somehow well on his way.  

Wonders never cease!  

Jurisdiction is ordinary when it is attached to an episcopal office, a diocesan see. Only a Pope can install a Bishop into a diocese. This is his prerogative alone by divine right as well as his power alone as Vicar of Christ who possesses universal jurisdiction. A Bishop so installed possesses jurisdiction as a habitual state.

On the contrary, for Bishops who do not possess such jurisdiction, and priests subordinate to them, jurisdiction is supplied by the Church for and only for those sacramental acts which are of such a nature that jurisdiction is required for their valid completion, in particular, penance and holy matrimony.

Jurisdiction is supplied individually for each instance, as and when it is needed, no matter how many times it is needed, but even a 1000 instances where jurisdiction is supplied for sacramental acts do not constitute habitual or ordinary jurisdiction.

Pope Pius XII said, "Ordinary power of jurisdiction flows to the Bishops only through the Roman Pontiff".  Cardinal Franzelin says

"The highest power itself, together with its rights and prerogatives, which can in no way exist except in the one individual heir of Peter, now actually belongs to no one while the See is vacant"

The practical conclusion is that Bishops consecrated during the interregnum period - the sede vacante - would not possess ordinary jurisdiction.

And this is the fundamental problem the sedevacantists have, and the reason they need to construct interesting theories to avoid the logical and inevitable conclusion - the Church cannot carry on indefinitely without the person of the Supreme Pontiff, for her hierarchical structure would be irremediably altered, as even John Lane concedes.

Some sedevacantists saw this problem and turned to electing Popes, they had pretty good reasons to do so. Unfortunately for them, that was pretty bad overall for other obvious reasons.

Whereas the SSPX position is at a disctinct advantage since they can indeed carry on indefinitely for however long they need to operating under supplied jurisdiction and providing the sacraments for the salvation of souls.