That's the difficult part - "unless or until approved by the Church". Given that the Church is occupied by a Modernist sect, it's not possible at this time that the Church can approve anything. And who knows how long the Crisis will last. It may not be over in our lifetime. Could it be the Crisis predisposes that some bishops will take it upon themselves to see merit in a particular apparition? Or supposed miracles in the Novus Ordo Mass? Not that I'm approving Garabandal, or the supposed miracles. But I tend to give +W the benefit of the doubt, even though I'm not a fan of Garabandal, for example. He's right about most things. That's why I can't outrightly condemn his views on other things which may otherwise be doubtful to us laity.

Bolding and underline in quote are mine.

This analogy reminds me of the heresy of Adoptionism.

Charity, I see your point... but we have to consider WHO we are talking about when we speak of The Holy Eucharist. We're talking about God Incarnate who was conceived of The Holy Ghost and born of The Virgin Mary.

 I believe Novus Ordo "miracles" are demonic and false. No other way to view it in my mind.

To all: I say this ONLY to describe the seriousness of what we're discussing here and I'm posting it as a rebuttal in this good faith discussion.

I love Our Mother very much and would never purposely write something to make her look bad. I hope my comment is understood and considered as intended. The phrasing I used in my original comment was immodest and imprudent. I hope this comment makes my point clear without having to explicitly state what I'm insinuating. Maybe I'm shooting myself in the foot again, but I think I make a valid point here.

Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us.

That's the difficult part - "unless or until approved by the Church". Given that the Church is occupied by a Modernist sect, it's not possible at this time that the Church can approve anything. And who knows how long the Crisis will last. It may not be over in our lifetime. Could it be the Crisis predisposes that some bishops will take it upon themselves to see merit in a particular apparition? Or supposed miracles in the Novus Ordo Mass? Not that I'm approving Garabandal, or the supposed miracles. But I tend to give +W the benefit of the doubt, even though I'm not a fan of Garabandal, for example. He's right about most things. That's why I can't outrightly condemn his views on other things which may otherwise be doubtful to us laity.

Well, even if a Eucharistic miracle occurred in a SSPX chapel I think I would still not believe it, at least not initially - (very easy to say at the moment). But the principle is the same if the crisis lasts another 1000 years.

What would you think if it occurred at a CMRI chapel? As much as you and I are against the sede doctrine, I (and I assume you) are way, way more anti-NO because of what it is. Between the two, the NO is by far the worst because of what it is. There is not even any comparison and I realize to even say such a thing does an injustice to CMRI and sedeism overall.   

Because of what the NO is, no miracles within the NO can be from heaven, any more than miracles would come out of a Lutheran service. If I and the others are wrong, so what. No harm done.

.

I think those bishops were sacramental functionaries whose job it was to administer confirmation or maybe Holy Orders. I don't think they were the ordinaries of dioceses. There's an inherent problem in having the bishop of a diocese whose identity is secret, which is that people are obliged to obey the bishop of a diocese, and they can't obey him if they don't know who he is. Now, certainly there have been bishops with ordinary jurisdiction who went into hiding to evade persecution, but that's not the same thing. In that case, everyone knew who they were, they just didn't know where they were (especially not the persecutors).

But you have a real problem if no one knows even the identity or name of a person who has ordinary jurisdiction. That's basically a scenario in which someone walks into town and says, "I'm the bishop of this place, I have authority over this diocese," and no one has ever heard of him before or was notified by the pope of his appointment. Would anyone accept him? Of course not. Nor should they. Then, if he produced some docuмent supposedly from the pope, how would anyone know this was not a forgery?

The problem here is that the whole concept of appointing someone to public office, by its very nature, is a public act by a superior authority, and it isn't possible to confer that authority secretly without removing at the same time any obligation of people to obey him.


This problem is becoming even further compounded in this scenario, in which such a person secretly appointed to office is now dead and gone, and someone comes along claiming that someone whom nobody ever knew was a bishop has subsequently turned around and made him a bishop, so that he now has authority over the Church.

I understand people trying to find a way to trace authority back to pre-Vatican 2 times, on the supposition that it has been lost somehow unless we can do that (an idea I disagree with), but honestly this scenario has serious problems on multiple levels.

There can't be an "in pectore" bishop, as that requires Holy Orders to be actually conferred, but the bishop could be given jurisdiction "in pectore".

We did (most likely) have Archbishop Thuc receive a mandate to consecrate without explicit papal approval due to his being in a Communist country.