Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Rethinking the “Lone Bishop in the Woods” Theory  (Read 1965 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15060
  • Reputation: +10006/-3162
  • Gender: Male
Rethinking the “Lone Bishop in the Woods” Theory
« on: October 05, 2023, 07:54:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • One of the sedevacantist arguments to the fact that all the bishops consecrated by Pope Pius XII had died was that, since indefectibility prevented apostasy of the entire hierarchy, there must still be some “lone bishop in the woods,” consecrated in the old rite by another himself consecrated by Pius XII.

    I had formerly dismissed that theory as nothing more than wishful thinking, and again, because even if such a thing did happen, said hidden bishop would not possess jurisdiction (meaning the hierarchy would still have vanished completely).

    But this morning, a new thought occurred to me:

    What if a bishop, consecrated in the old rite (say, an SSPX or Resistance bishop), but without jurisdiction, were requested by a conciliar bishop to conditionally ordain/consecrate him?

    This would solve the problem of the Pius XII bishops all having died, and the problem of jurisdiction, making the possibility somewhat more plausible than in the past.

    I learned only 1-2 years ago about Cardinals being appointed by the popes “in pectore” (ie., secretly, to avoid persecution), and more recently, Resistance bishops being consecrated “in pectore.”  We also saw SSPX priests secretly obtaining certainly valid holy oils from +Faure in the wake of the +Huonder fiasco.

    The point being, that in revolutionary and persecutors times, things are sometimes done secretly, for tge survival of the Church, and this method could be a reverse Trojan Horse for re-injecting traditional bishops and cardinals through the back door back into the hierarchy (their orders and episcopacies being kept alive by “irregular” bishops), when they can no longer enter through the front.

    Ps: Is this partly why the conciliar church is so desperate to conquer the SSPX and/or discredit the trads (ie., to prevent such a back door maneuver/work-around)?
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11528
    • Reputation: +6470/-1191
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Rethinking the “Lone Bishop in the Woods” Theory
    « Reply #1 on: October 05, 2023, 08:07:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Real Catholic bishops (and it would have been nice if you included the sedevacantist bishop too) being conditionally consecrated by Conciliars?  How would that work given it would probably be done in the New Rite?


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46813
    • Reputation: +27669/-5138
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rethinking the “Lone Bishop in the Woods” Theory
    « Reply #2 on: October 05, 2023, 08:16:40 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'm not sure I understand.  Both the +Lefebvre lines and the +Thuc lines come from the Pius XII era and are a continuation thereof.

    I don't think there NEEEDS to be some "hidden bishop" still alive who was consecrated WHILE Pius XII was still alive.

    In fact, one of the interesting pieces of information is that +Thuc most likely had an indult going back to Pius XI (I think) to consecrate bishops without explicit papal approval, due to his having been in Communist territory.

    But I don't believe that actual ordinary jurisdiction is required for the continuity of the Church, although at the same time, as a sedeprivationist, or as sedevacantists who appeal to "color of title," there are at least some Eastern Rite bishops out there who are not pertinacious heretics and who are validly consecrated, who undoubtedly still possess ordinary jurisdiction.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46813
    • Reputation: +27669/-5138
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rethinking the “Lone Bishop in the Woods” Theory
    « Reply #3 on: October 05, 2023, 08:18:11 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Real Catholic bishops (and it would have been nice if you included the sedevacantist bishop too) being conditionally consecrated by Conciliars?  How would that work given it would probably be done in the New Rite?

    I believe he's thinking of the reverse, a Conciliar bishop being conditionally consecrated in the Traditional Rite by one of the current Trad bishops.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14751
    • Reputation: +6085/-907
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rethinking the “Lone Bishop in the Woods” Theory
    « Reply #4 on: October 05, 2023, 08:19:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The whole idea of a “Lone Bishop in the Woods” is absurd, all anyone has to do is think about it for a minute. 

    Think about what exactly does a lone valid bishop hiding from all her members accomplish for the Church, her members and her indefectibility? Nothing at all.

    Is he teaching, enforcing any laws, directing the faithful, administering sacraments or is he trembling for fear of being found out and exposed? Again, how does that help anything except the life, reputation or ? of the bishop who is in hiding? Exactly why is he hiding and from what anyway?
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Offline Marulus Fidelis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 750
    • Reputation: +401/-122
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rethinking the “Lone Bishop in the Woods” Theory
    « Reply #5 on: October 05, 2023, 09:29:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'm not by any means impressed by the theory but what gives it more credibility is that Abp. Thuc received dispensation from Pius XII to consecrate bishops secretly because of persecution. It seems that bishops consecrated by Thuc would have ordinary jurisdiction in that case.

    The best part of the hidden bishop theory is that it is unfalsifiable, so it's always there as a last resort against the for other reasons specious objection on the grounds of apostolicity.

    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4105
    • Reputation: +2418/-528
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rethinking the “Lone Bishop in the Woods” Theory
    « Reply #6 on: October 05, 2023, 09:53:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The idea doesn't make much sense to me either. If there were a bishop out there teaching the Catholic Faith and condemning the errors of the new church, we would certainly have heard of him. Bp. Schneider condemns some of the errors of the new church and he is practically a household name in circles that are anywhere near traditional Catholic, and he lives in a country that is so remote that I had never even heard of it before he came on the scene. I only learned of the existence of a country called Kazakhstan because it was where Schneider lives.

    And he doesn't even have any jurisdiction in the new church at all. He's just an auxiliary bishop.

    So if there were an actual ordinary in the new church doing what he's doing, we would certainly know about it, even if he were in the ends of the earth.

    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4105
    • Reputation: +2418/-528
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rethinking the “Lone Bishop in the Woods” Theory
    « Reply #7 on: October 05, 2023, 09:57:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The whole idea of a “Lone Bishop in the Woods” is absurd, all anyone has to do is think about it for a minute.

    Think about what exactly does a lone valid bishop hiding from all her members accomplish for the Church, her members and her indefectibility? Nothing at all.

    Is he teaching, enforcing any laws, directing the faithful, administering sacraments or is he trembling for fear of being found out and exposed? Again, how does that help anything except the life, reputation or ? of the bishop who is in hiding? Exactly why is he hiding and from what anyway?
    .

    Well said. There are numerous problems with the idea and you mentioned a good number of them.


    Offline Marulus Fidelis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 750
    • Reputation: +401/-122
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rethinking the “Lone Bishop in the Woods” Theory
    « Reply #8 on: October 05, 2023, 10:17:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The idea doesn't make much sense to me either. If there were a bishop out there teaching the Catholic Faith and condemning the errors of the new church, we would certainly have heard of him. Bp. Schneider condemns some of the errors of the new church and he is practically a household name in circles that are anywhere near traditional Catholic, and he lives in a country that is so remote that I had never even heard of it before he came on the scene. I only learned of the existence of a country called Kazakhstan because it was where Schneider lives.

    And he doesn't even have any jurisdiction in the new church at all. He's just an auxiliary bishop.

    So if there were an actual ordinary in the new church doing what he's doing, we would certainly know about it, even if he were in the ends of the earth.
    You're missing the point. To counter the ordinary jurisdiction objection a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction just has to exist. He could be blind, deaf, mute and illiterate - it would make no difference.

    The objection is never presented rigorously though, it's just asserted that such a bishop has to exist without any proof. The answer can be as gratuitous: "If such a bishop has to exist then he exists."

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14751
    • Reputation: +6085/-907
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rethinking the “Lone Bishop in the Woods” Theory
    « Reply #9 on: October 05, 2023, 10:42:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You're missing the point. To counter the ordinary jurisdiction objection a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction just has to exist. He could be blind, deaf, mute and illiterate - it would make no difference.

    The objection is never presented rigorously though, it's just asserted that such a bishop has to exist without any proof. The answer can be as gratuitous: "If such a bishop has to exist then he exists."
    If that is the case, then there is nothing to worry about because for as much as one can argue against validity of the NO consecration of bishops, that is something that is only a theoretical opinion impossible to indisputably prove. Therefore there are already perhaps 1000s of bishops with ordinary jurisdiction.

    Either way the idea of a lone bishop in hiding preserving the Church is altogether absurd.
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4105
    • Reputation: +2418/-528
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rethinking the “Lone Bishop in the Woods” Theory
    « Reply #10 on: October 05, 2023, 10:44:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You're missing the point. To counter the ordinary jurisdiction objection a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction just has to exist. He could be blind, deaf, mute and illiterate - it would make no difference.
    .

    There is more to the idea than that there must be someone out there. The idea is that there will always be a teaching Church, and therefore there will always be a bishop publicly teaching with authority. Since a male Helen Keller isn't able to teach the Church, he doesn't meet the requirements.

    Quote
    The objection is never presented rigorously though, it's just asserted that such a bishop has to exist without any proof. The answer can be as gratuitous: "If such a bishop has to exist then he exists."


    This is a very difficult question and I hesitate to pronounce on it, but I don't see the point of denying obvious facts either, and it's an obvious fact that no one in the Novus Ordo hierarchy is teaching the Faith and condemning modernism.

    Incidentally, this makes me think the traditional Catholic bishops are the continuation of the hierarchy, if there must be such, since they meet the largest number of the criteria of the hierarchy. They are validly consecrated, they teach the Faith, they condemn error, people must accept their teachings when they teach the Faith, they are visible as the Church, and when people want to become Catholic (traditional Catholic) they go to such bishops or their priests for instruction and reception into the Church and attend their chapels.

    The only serious argument against that position is that such people were not given jurisdiction from the pope, but I think there are unusual cases in which a bishop can receive ordinary jurisdiction from another bishop because appeal to Rome is impossible.

    I'm not necessarily endorsing this idea, but it's more plausible than any other explanation I've heard.


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rethinking the “Lone Bishop in the Woods” Theory
    « Reply #11 on: October 05, 2023, 12:06:31 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • There is more to the idea than that there must be someone out there. The idea is that there will always be a teaching Church, and therefore there will always be a bishop publicly teaching with authority. Since a male Helen Keller isn't able to teach the Church, he doesn't meet the requirements.

    Hi Yeti-

    We do know that in the end times, the Church and faithful will become increasingly miserable, persecuted, and constricted.

    What we don’t know is what are the minimum requirements for the visibility of the Church, which will certainly be realized in the end times.

    In Msgr. Benson’s end-times novel “Lord of the World,” the hierarchy was whittled down to a pope, a cardinal, and 1-3 priests (all of whom were in hiding).  I realize a novel is not a doctrinal thesis, but…

    In the “prognosis” section of Romano’s “Iota Unum,” he forecasts that the Church will continue to dissolve itself into the substance of the world (and today we see exactly that, as Francis writes an encyclical on climate emergency). He also posits that a situation akin to Thomas Mann’s novel, in which the Church has almost entirely vanished, when a dehumanized man, reduced to eating grass, is surprisingly carried away by the last faithful and made pope, after which the Church is reborn, so to speak, and rescued from the precipice.

    My thought here being that it is not clear what form visibility will take in the end times, except that it will not be as it has in the past, because the church will be decimated.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2327
    • Reputation: +876/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rethinking the “Lone Bishop in the Woods” Theory
    « Reply #12 on: October 05, 2023, 12:31:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • .

    There is more to the idea than that there must be someone out there. The idea is that there will always be a teaching Church, and therefore there will always be a bishop publicly teaching with authority. Since a male Helen Keller isn't able to teach the Church, he doesn't meet the requirements.


    The idea is that the Church will continue the presence of Christ on earth in his threefold capacity of Teacher, Sanctifier and Ruler. This requires a power of jurisidiction. The indefectibility of the Church is implicated in the necessity of this threefold capacity of Christ existing in the Church.

    The CE talks the power of jurisdiction:

    Quote
    It is usual to distinguish a twofold hierarchy in the Church, that of order and that of jurisdiction, corresponding to the twofold means of sanctification, grace, which comes to us principally through the sacraments, and good works, which are the fruit of grace. The hierarchy of order exercises its power over the Real Body of Christ in the Eucharist; that of jurisdiction over His Mystical Body, the Church (Catech. Conc. Trid., pt. II, c. vii, n. 6). Christ did not give to all the faithful power to administer His sacraments, except in the case of baptism and matrimony, or to offer public worship. This was reserved to those who, having received the sacrament of order, belong to the hierarchy of order. He entrusted the guidance of the faithful along the paths of duty and in the practice of good works to a religious authority, and for this purpose He established a hierarchy of jurisdiction. Moreover, He established His Church as a visible, external, and perfect society ; hence He conferred on its hierarchy the right to legislate for the good of that society. For this double purpose, the sanctification of souls and the good or welfare of religious society, the hierarchy of jurisdiction is endowed with the following rights :


    • the right to frame and sanction laws which it considers useful or necessary, i.e. legislative power;
    • the right to judge how the faithful observe these laws i.e. judicial power;
    • the right to enforce obedience, and to punish disobedience to its laws i.e. coercive power;
    • the right to make all due provision for the proper celebration of worship, i.e. administrative power.

    Furthermore, with the power of jurisdiction there should be connected the right to exercise the power of order. The acts of the power of order are, it is true, always valid (except in the sacrament of Penance, which requires in addition a power of jurisdiction ). However, in a well-ordered society like the Church, the right to exercise the power of order could never be a mere matter of choice. For its legitimate exercise the Church requires either jurisdiction, or at least permission, even of a general character.

    Ordinarily, also, the teaching power (magisterium) is connected with the power of jurisdiction. It is possible, of course, to distinguish in the Church a threefold power: the potestas magisterii , or the right to teach in matters of faith and morals ; the potestas ministerii , or the right to administer the sacraments, and the potestas regiminis , or the power of jurisdiction . Christ, however, did not establish a special hierarchy for the "potestas magisterii", nor does the teaching power pertain to the power of order, as some have maintained, but rather to the power of jurisdiction . . .

    https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5760


    The CE talks about how indefectibility is implicated by the necessity of a continuing hierarchy with the power of jurisdiction here:


    Quote
    By the hierarchy and the sacraments, Christ, further, made the Church the depositary of the graces of the Passion. Were it to lose either of these, it could no longer dispense to men the treasures of grace.

    https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm

    Fr. Despositio, a Sede priest, talked on Twitter about how Sede bishops don't have a power of jurisdiction, and cannot fulfill the need for an ongoing hierarchy with that power:


    Quote

    There is a simple way to show that sedevacantist bishops are not members of the Catholic hierarchy (of jurisdiction). Sedevacantist bishops do indeed have supplied power to forgive sins. But does anyone recognize the power to enact laws in a sedevacantist bishop? Authority is defined as 'the ability to pass a law'. Does your sedevacantist bishop enact laws in your church? Does your sedevacantist bishop have power over a particular territory? Does your sedevacantist bishop grant special indulgences? Does your sedevacantist bishop refers to his church as a cathedral? The answer to these questions is in the negative. If your sedevacantist bishop were in fact a member of the Catholic hierarchy (of jurisdiction), he would be able to demand obedience. His laws would bind in conscience. No sedevacantist bishop has such power.

    This is the problem that informs the "lone bishop in the woods theory," which, even if there were one, would have problems identified here by Stubborn.

    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline Marulus Fidelis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 750
    • Reputation: +401/-122
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rethinking the “Lone Bishop in the Woods” Theory
    « Reply #13 on: October 05, 2023, 12:53:01 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • The idea is that the Church will continue the presence of Christ on earth in his threefold capacity of Teacher, Sanctifier and Ruler. This requires a power of jurisidiction. The indefectibility of the Church is implicated in the necessity of this threefold capacity of Christ existing in the Church.

    The CE talks the power of jurisdiction:

    The CE talks about how indefectibility is implicated by the necessity of a continuing hierarchy with the power of jurisdiction here:


    Fr. Despositio, a Sede priest, talked on Twitter about how Sede bishops don't have a power of jurisdiction, and cannot fulfill the need for an ongoing hierarchy with that power:


    This is the problem that informs the "lone bishop in the woods theory," which, even if there were one, would have problems identified here by Stubborn.

    The Church cannot lose its power of jurisdiction as a constitutive element, as an institution, as pertaining to the Office of Peter. What it can lose is the present wielder of the power.

    Aemil. Dorsch S. J., 1928: “The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.… “Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not… “For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate. These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, is not so strictly necessary.” (de Ecclesia 2:196–7)

    In any case, Lefebvrites claim their popes and bishops have jurisdiction while rejecting or ignoring every act of that supposed jurisdiction, such as the one prohibiting Lefebvre to consecrate and even in comparatively small matters such as annulments. So all staunch traditionalists are in the same boat and only Novus Ordites could levy this argument without hypocrisy. 

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2327
    • Reputation: +876/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rethinking the “Lone Bishop in the Woods” Theory
    « Reply #14 on: October 05, 2023, 01:15:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Church cannot lose its power of jurisdiction as a constitutive element, as an institution, as pertaining to the Office of Peter. What it can lose is the present wielder of the power.

    Aemil. Dorsch S. J., 1928: “The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.… “Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not… “For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate. These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, is not so strictly necessary.” (de Ecclesia 2:196–7)

    In any case, Lefebvrites claim their popes and bishops have jurisdiction while rejecting or ignoring every act of that supposed jurisdiction, such as the one prohibiting Lefebvre to consecrate and even in comparatively small matters such as annulments. So all staunch traditionalists are in the same boat and only Novus Ordites could levy this argument without hypocrisy.

    Yet again, Marulus, to respond you have to reframe the argument to being about the pope, as if the issue were only one of sedevacante. It is not.
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.