The work of the Church does not stop and the nature of the Church does not change just because there is no living pope.
Jurisdiction exists to create order. Jurisdiction does not exist to bring the work of the Church to a screeching halt when there is no pope. Jurisdiction does not exist for its own sake and jurisdiction is not the primary end, but rather it is a means to the work intended by Christ. And that work should never stop just because jurisdiction may seem suspended.
A local parish church, wherever it is, exists to carry on the work of the Church. If it fails to do that in a grievous way, its errors must be opposed. But if the bishop in charge will do nothing, and if there is no pope who could do something, the faithful must be careful to adhere to the authentic magisterium of the Church and to its doctrines and perennial teachings, while working to rectify the problems if possible. If conditions in that parish become impossible to tolerate, the faithful must consult their own properly formed consciences as to what should then be done.
Well stated. I am not quite certain I can always follow these discussions with the modicum of knowledge that I have regarding the subjects, but jurisdiction and visibility while related seem to be two separate issues and one must be clear on exactly what they mean. Certainly agree with supplied jurisdiction at a time of crisis in the Church, created at present by a Modernist influenced hierarchy. Awaiting S.D. Wright's response to this article, perhaps for better clarity that comes from these discussions.
All praise and thanksgiving to Our Lord Jesus Christ for establishing His Church in and with the complete fullness and authorization of His authority!!
Father Gabriel is precisely spot on. Folks nowadays waste too much time on social media, blog, youtube…listening mostly to craps. Instead, why don’t they spend time to learn Catholic Church Catechism pre Vatican 2 e.g. Catechism of Council of Trent, or at least Radio Replies…Catholic Church Catechism is pure and easy to remember, even my 10-yr-old daughter can tell exactly where the true Church is.
28. is it easy to recognize this one Church established by Christ?
Yes; for Christ has established a visible Church with perceptible marks so that it is easy to find her; 1.otherwise He could not have commanded us under pain of eternal damnation to apply to the Church and to hear her.
1 Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house (Matt. v. 15).
2 If thy brother shall offend against thee, go and tell the Church; and if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican' (Matt, xviii.17).
29. how is the Church of Christ visible?
The Church of Christ is visible 1. In her superiors and members; 2. In her doctrine; and 3. In the Sacrifice of the Mass and in the administration of the Sacraments.
If the Church were not visible in this manner, how would it then be possible, according to the direction of Christ and the Apostles (Hebr. xiii. 17; Mark xvi. 15, 16, and elsewhere), to obey the Prelates' (Bishops and Priests) of the Church, to hear her Teachers, to participate in her Sacrifice and Sacraments, or, in general, in her Divine Service?
It's also a Book title. Three volumes, been around for decades. Tan Books published them (and still does). The Internet Archive has at least one volume available as well.
It’s impossible to pick winners among HiE posts but this might be it so far.
It’s just a bullseye, imho.
As an aside, can we get the Big Sedes to quit sniping at themselves and everyone else, model a bit more humility and charity, and for the love of God quote demonizing “the joos”?
I am surprised how much I agreed with Matt Gaspers’ tweet, too.
These debates are wonderful. Thank you for the unique and informative role you play.
Will check out the Fatima Conference, hoping not to be disappointed.
I’m up for the Imperfect Counsel, an act of God, or the conversion of Leo.
Yes, I too thought this is the best HiE post. Finally, finally, finally, we are setting aside Leo and Francis and their antics for a moment, and discussing what/where the Church is.
As I posted several months ago, when I first came to HiE - if you're going to say "outside the Church, no salvation" then you better precisely define "Church" and "outside."
Seems to me Gaspars is working out his salvation with fear and trembling. So am I.
As far as defining "outside" the Church, the following seems like a good place to start:
During the Council of Florence (1442) Pope Eugene IV issued the bull (not an encyclical) Cantate Domino, which famously declared that no one remaining outside the Catholic Church—explicitly listing pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics—could inherit eternal life.
In his 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi (On the Mystical Body of Christ) Pope Pius XII explicitly listed the groups that are excluded or severed from the visible body of the Church. In paragraph 22 of the encyclical, he defines exactly who qualifies as a member and outlines four distinct groups that are placed outside the Church:
Schismatics: Those who refuse submission to the Supreme Pontiff or refuse communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
Heretics: Those who, after receiving baptism, obstinately deny or doubt a truth that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.
Apostates: Those who totally repudiate and cast aside the Christian faith entirely.
Excommunicates: Those who have been cut off by legitimate ecclesiastical authority through a perfect decree of excommunication for grave faults.
The only way you could be up for an imperfect council, while simultaneously agreeing with Gaspers, is if you consider supplied jurisdiction sufficient to legitimize such a council…a notion I have not yet entirely discounted.
I failed to qualify my comment. I agreed with the questions, and the demeanor, of the tweet attributed to Matt Gaspers, not with all things Matt Gaspers. And I was surprised that I agreed with them.
I do not understand the parameters of this topic well enough to have an educated opinion. But it does seem that "Imperfect Council" (as I hear the concept discussed) is an option and maybe the only currently known option to bring daylight to the current "eclipse" (or *apparent obscurity) of the Church, the other two things being pretty much out of man's hands.
I'm in the fortunate and blessed position of being able to attend the TLM offered by my Parish Priest, who, though a priest of the Novus Ordo, wishes to maintain the faith of our fathers and accepts being regarded as somewhat peculiar by his surrounding priest colleagues.
Fortunately he is allowed to plough the traditional furrow unimpeded, and the fruit of his work has been extraordinary, with all the usual signs: young families, real devotion, excellent music and liturgy etc.
We recognise that there is a big problem in Rome, as the majority of your posts importantly spell out simply by reporting the stream of resulting abuses.
Nevertheless, I do not need to regard myself as Sede because I experience Christ's jurisdiction over the Catholic Church I belong to that has been handed down from the Apostles even to being fully present in the small village church I attend.
My understanding accords with what is said above, and I greatly sympathise with Catholic Churches whom I assume have been forced to call themselves Sedevacantist in order to preserve the ancient faith in their locality without destructive interference from ecclesiastical authorities.
This should never be necessary and it shames the institutional church that it is.
So, once this interregnum between valid papal authorities is past and we have a true successor of Peter back in Rome, I expect Sedes will return as one to him with great joy.
In the meantime I pray for more priests like my own!
Right, but I’m asking about the consecration of the bishop who ordained him: Was that bishop himself consecrated in the old rite by another bishop who was consecrated in the old rite?
If he was consecrated in the old rite by a bishop himself consecrated in the new rite (eg., Bishop Rifan of Campos being consecrated by Cardinal Hoyos who was consecrated in the new rite), some like myself would consider that doubtful (and therefore any orders such doubtful bishops might confer likewise doubtful).
I'm not familiar with the differences between the old and new rites so will have to research them to form a judgement. There are presumably many variations in rites of consecration across the orthodox Catholic world?
This is no doubt a naive question but why do we not simply define the hierarchy as all the validly ordained and consecrated bishops (no matter SSPX, RCI, CMRI, etc) who hold to the perennial teachings of the Church?
Not a naive question. But how are we to know for certain that the Sede bishops are in fact validly consecrated? The SSPX bishops were/are. But there is definite doubt when it comes to some Sedes.
Auxiliary bishops do note have to power to rule, but are able to ordain, consecrate, and bless with the fullness of the priesthood; vicars general who are not bishops do not have the power of the episcopacy, but they can most definitely exercise juridical power as given to him by the ordinary.
The laity and clergy without jurisdiction cannot just simply redefine a doctrine such as this.
No, no one redefined anything, but they'd like to.
Yes, both auxiliary bishops and vicars general work under and with the indulgence of an ordinary. And? Who is the ordinary over the bishops of the CMRI, RCI, and/or SSPX?
And "the Thesis" does not falsely claim anything; orders and jurisdiction are separate, which is part of the reasoning why Vatican 2's collegiality is erroneous.
Why don't the popes ever tackle the sede question? They always revert to canon law. They lack the arguments to tackle it head on. Ergo, they ain't popes. If that presents Catholics with the problem of jurisdiction then so be it.
we have obviously had a string of horrible popes.. they have worked in many ways to destroy the Church and cause laity to leave the Church.. being silent about the sede protest churches works within their evil plans..it allows a place to go that appears safe..outside the Church..two sides of the same coin..very evil..
So those who follow the evil Pope will end up in Hell. Those who run a mile from him will end up in Hell. Only safe place is nearby but not too close. And don't believe a word he says, except when he says 'I am the Pope'?
I lack the credentials and knowledge to respond to your question but I was forced to give myself an answer when I was expelled from the conciliar choich some 15 years ago. My options at the time were to support religious sodomy or to find out where the real church was. My conclusion was as follows and still is.
1. The "little flock" is out there and it will be there when Our Lord comes
2. The Church is in a similar situation as the Apostles and disciples were during Calvary
3. 11 went into hiding (to be preserved) 1 chose to be a traitor
4. It was a time of confusion as disciples tried to reconcile the promise with the actual situation
5. The "little flock" was there suffering until Pentecost came and all was divinely restored.
So, I chose to place myself in that position knowing very well God is in control. I can still pray and be united spiritually to my brothers and sisters who hold the same hope.
Did Fr. Lavery's response help to heal, in any way, your hesitation to the Sede position? It seems it didn't since you must have read it before making your post, and in the post you say you are unconvinced by those such as Fr. Lavery.
I think it is a mistake on your part to need to have every possible thing known to you before acting on doing the right thing. SD Wright made this point in his last interview with Stephen.
If someone like Bergoglio or Prevost could be a valid pope, then the papacy would be ineffective as to preservation of the magisterium. But we know that Christ did not institute an ineffective papacy as to preservation of the magisterium. Consequently someone like Bergoglio or Prevost can not be a valid pope.
Your syllogism fails, at a minimum in the first proposition, in which I believe you intend to say that heretics make the papacy an ineffective teaching institution. Among other things, this ignores that popes come and go. Thus, a series of bad (unbelieving?) Renaissance popes didn’t destroy the papacy. This is especially true with the magisterium, which though it of course should be guarded by popes, is not solely defended by them. And in a broader historical context, it is interesting to consider that God willed that this crisis should escalate just as the means of accessing traditional teaching have increased.
Is a pope who acts the part but teaches heresy worse than one who is too busy fighting wars and whoring to teach the faith? Couldn't one say that the latter is teaching against the faith just as much as the former?
And whether this was a matter of God's permissive or positive will, we have to consider the historical circumstances in which this is all playing out.
I'm not opining one way or the other on whether heretics can be popes; I'm just wondering if the circumstances, the fact that we can learn the true faith regardless of who is pope, means that we don't have to risk the attempt of judging whether someone is a valid pope.
"Couldn't one say that the latter [committing sin] is teaching against the faith just as much as the former [teaching heresy]?"
There's a difference between committing sin and intending that sin to be a contradiction to the faith. Otherwise every sin would be an act of apostasy also.
"judging whether someone is a valid pope."
Theologically speaking, the word "judging" can mean quite different things. That is why I think it is more helpful to use other terminology, such as 'applying reason to evidence to reach a logical conclusion'.
St Catherine of Sienna certainly did not set us the example of merely learning the true faith for ourselves and ignoring the situation of an anti-pope.
Regardless of what he intends, a pope who lives a scandalous life teaches the faith shouldn't be taken seriously. I don't see a helpful distinction in your alternative terminology. And I don't know what St. Catherine would do in our circumstances, but I expect she's praying for us.
Except that they too all pray for a heretic antipope in the Divine Liturgy. That makes their priests and eparchs schismatics for recognizing a heretic as pope. In doing so, every Divine Liturgy where they pray for an antipope as pope constitutes a mortal sin of schism.
By what mechanism do you argue that the Uniate bishops still have ordinary jurisdiction? The overwhelming majority have absolutely valid orders, but jurisdiction?
I'm not being argumentative, because this is an important point that I, as a Uniate, am very curious about and believe needs to be settled.
I have argued that it is their sui juris status that may insulate them from the jurisdiction problem in the Latin church. It is my understanding that our bishops are elected internally and then presented to Rome for approval. That being said, there is still a papal mandate read at the consecration of every Uniate bishop. Further, as every Uniate church is subject immediately to the Holy See, the Holy See are able to impose whatever disciplines on them that they see fit. The 1990 Eastern Code of Canon Law is one example.
People can disagree if they wish, I do not care, but I know where the church does not reside. It does not reside in the false novus ordo church established by and after the vatican 2 revolution. It does not reside in any novus ordo (from here on in referred to as the novus bogus) priest ordained in the novus bogus rite of ordination, or in any “bishop” consecrated in the novus bogus episcopal rite of consecration. It does not reside in any of those former Ecclesia Dei communities where priests although ordained in the Traditional Catholic rite were ordained by “bishops” who were consecrated bishops in the novus bogus rite of episcopal consecration. And surely jurisdiction is not validly granted or withdrawn by any of the modernist heretic pretenders from Roncali to Bobby Prevost who are obviously not Catholic and anti-popes. Now go at it I really do not care.
Visibility is not everything. Sometimes it’s useful to reflect on the times when Jesus was hidden. Ponder the flight to Egypt or when his parents couldn’t find him for 3 days. It’s times like this that try one’s faith. The invisible is far more important than the visible.
It would seem from this that NO ordained/consecrated priests and bishops who are activelly preserving and teaching pre-Vatican II doctrine and sacraments would be, for the sake of souls that otherwise would not be saved, bestowed with validity and jurisdiction by Christ in his mercy. No?
Yes, that is VERY hopefully true "for the sake of souls." The terms "NO religion" or "NO church" are frequently used (derisively) and it's not clear if that means the new Mass only (while holding pre-Vat2 doctrine/trad teaching), or if it means the New Mass PLUS the modernist heretical garbage.
Fr. Lavery has made really good points on this topic. I really believe that traditional bishops (at least those who are appointed to govern a particular community) have ordinary jurisdiction, but received in extraordinary circumstances.
This is something that requires development yes, but there are solid points to defend it.
Today I read this quote which I think that goes in that direction:
“Due to the pressing needs. In these critical moments when heresy is rampant, not everything proceeds exactly as it was established in times of peace. However, this is precisely what Blessed Athanasius and the very holy Eusebius manifestly did: both extended their hands beyond the limits (of their jurisdiction). Now too, in the present heresy, we see the same thing happening.”
Saint Theodore the Studite - Year 758-826, Patrologia Graecae.
Note thas these saints didn’t appointed “sacramental bishops”, but real bishops with authority in the Church.
Yes, this is definitely a direction to troubleshoot.
One thing that has been on my mind lately is Dom Adrien Grea’s writings about extraordinary manifestations of episcopal jurisdiction which were necessary for the spread/growth of the Church in the early days.
He remarks in his book “The Church and its Divine Constitution” that jurisdiction seems to have been conferred “as if from itself, rather than from Peter” because of necessity.
“History confirms that the state of necessity extended not only the duties of bishops, but also their power of jurisdiction. Dom Grea whose attachment to the pope is above all suspicion testifies (De l’Eglise et de sa divine consitution, vol. I) that not only at the beginning of Christianity did the "necessity of the Church and the Gospel" demand that the power of the episcopal order be exercised in all its fullness without jurisdictional limitations, but that in successive ages extraordinary circumstances required" even more exceptional and more extraordinary manifestations" of episcopal power (ibid., p.218) in order "to apply a remedy to the current necessity of the Christian people" (ibid. and ƒƒ.), for whom there was no hope of aid on the part of the legitimate pastors nor from the Pope. In such circumstances, in which the common good of the Church is also at stake, the jurisdictional limitations vanish and "that which is universal" in episcopal power "comes directly to the aid of souls" (ibid., p.218)…”
I will try to summarize my position on this matter, since there seems to be an interest in conducting a serious investigation into the topic, rather than simply parroting the term “epikeia” without delving into what it actually means in practice.
The main problem with the popular sedevacantism of people like Mario Derksen, Sean Wright, and even the late Father Cekada (RIP) is that it completely deprives the traditionalist clergy of legitimacy. The reasoning is quite simple: if they have no jurisdiction, they cannot administer the sacraments, they cannot preach, they cannot run seminaries, etc. In short, they could not perform any function. It is not my intention right now to elaborate on this point; I will simply limit myself to quoting the Council of Trent, which I believe makes this point very clear: "If anyone says (...) that those who have been neither righly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical authority, but come from elsewhere, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments, let him be anathema." Personally, I am not interested in doing mental gymnastics to avoid this canon. If a priest is administering the sacraments, he must be send by someone with authority, that is common sense, but sadly it is not so common anymore.
Also, it is a requisite by both the visibility and apostolicity of the Church to be identifiable legitimate pastors. The marks and attributes of the Church are external signs that help us to identify her, they are not just merely words in which you must believe. Arguments like "I believe in apostolicity, but I cannot identify the succesors of the apostles" is fideism, to put it in short. Catholicism is not based in faith alone, that faith is based on external evidence too.
So, to get in the point, as Fr. Lavery rightly said, the only bishops that meet all the requirements of being the hierarchy are the traditional bishops, since they preach the true faith, rule and sanctify their subjects. There is a famous axiom from philosophy that says: "operare sequitur esse" (the action follows the being). If they perform licitly actions that requires jurisdiction, then they must have jurisdiction. And, again, this is basic common sense. So all the work it should be on identifying under which mechanism they received this jurisdiction and what is it’s scope in the present situation.
My humble opinion on this is the following: when a traditional bishop appoints another bishop as a pastor of a flock (manifested today by the particular communities that currently exists) he make use of an extraordinary jurisdiction which is presumed to be granted tacitly by the last valid pope (Pius XII, in my opinion) through the current legislation applied with the principle of canonical equity. Through that act, is preserved ordinary jurisdiction and the offices in the Church. Due to the crisis, those offices are not perfectly structured, since they don´t have territorial delimitation, but that fact doesn´t mean that they don´t exist.
It can be said more things on this topic, but I want to present a commentary, not a post.
Below, I present a collection of quotes of theologians explaining the transmission of ordinary jurisdiction through the tacit will of the popes:
“For persecution itself, in which it is not permitted for bishops to exercise their proper [ministry] grants jurisdiction, by tacit consent of superiors, who do not want souls to perish. Hence, it is said in the Tripartite History, from Eusebius: ‘Meanwhile, Eusebius, bishop of Samosata, while being deported into exile, worked strenuously at apostolic labors. Seeing that many churches were despoiled of their shepherds, he put on military garb, and covering his head with a helmet, traveled around Syria, along with Phoenicia and Palestine, ordaining priests and deacons, and filling other offices of the church. But wherever he found bishops who agreed with him, he constituted them the heads of churches who were lacking in them.’
“And again it is said, in the same place: ‘Therefore, Athanasius proceeded through Pelusium towards Alexandria. Passing through the cities, he taught that all should avoid the Arians, and embrace the dogma of consubstantiality. In certain churches, however, he performed ordinations. And this was the beginning of another quarrel against him; because he presumed to ordain in the churches of others [other bishops].’ From this it is concluded that it is permitted even to extend jurisdiction on account of necessity; and because they did not consider this, they unjustly reprehended Athanasius.’
“Therefore elsewhere in the Tripartite History, it is said of Theodosius’s activity in the Constantinopolitan synod: ‘But he, gravely concerned that a division was again coming about, begged everyone to search for a praiseworthy man, in order to ordain him bishop. Then, agreeing with these words, they appointed Nectarius, a man of a family distinguished by nobility, bishop of the city of Constantinople. Maximus, however, who was tainted with the contagion of Apollinaris, was stripped of his pontifical dignity and ejected. Then also they passed a law, that the bishop of Constantinople should have the privileges of honor after the Roman pontiff, because it is the new Rome. They also reaffirmed the faith of Nicea, and established patriarchs, distributing provinces, so that the bishops of each diocese should not go to outside churches; for this used to be done at one time indifferently on account of the time of persecution.’”
-Fr. Diego Laínez, S.J., Disputationes Tridentinae. Text beginning “Causa autem jurisdictionis,” p. 361
“For even if an explicit confirmation and acknowledgment of the election of some bishop by the bishop of Rome should be lacking, the very communion of the brotherhood and ordination by bishops of the Catholic Church could be considered as a tacit acknowledgment and communication of episcopal jurisdiction.”
-Dieckmann, De ecclesia, Vol. 1, p. 413. 1925.
“History recounts, in praise of him, the example of Saint Eusebius, Bishop of Samosata, who, during the Arian persecution, travelled around the churches to provide them with faithful priests and pastors (see the paragraph below). But to praise this trait and others of the same kind, it is not necessary to go back to a supposed concession that never existed. Suffice it to say that, by virtue of the charity that unites all members of the Church, bishops owe each other mutual assistance, for which they can rightly presume the consent of the Roman Pontiff in cases of unforeseen necessity because "it seems obvious to us that apostolic vicars whose lives are thus threatened can and must quickly consecrate at least one bishop in order to be able to effectively preserve Christianity. But by what right will they act? Would it be by virtue of the universal jurisdiction conferred for extreme cases? No. They will rely solely on the presumed consent of the Roman Pontiff, whose intentions they interpret as wise men."
-R. Fr. H. Montrouzier s.j., "Origine de la juridiction épiscopale" [Origin of Episcopal Jurisdiction], in "Revue des sciences ecclésiastiques" [Review of Ecclesiastical Sciences]. 1872, 5th article. Part Three.II, p. 397.
"As a result of calamities beyond the reach of the law, and of violence which could not be remedied by common means, the action of local pastors may have been entirely lacking; we were thus brought back to the conditions in which the apostolate had been exercised for the establishment of the Churches and when local ministries had not yet been constituted. For, as we have already said, it is conceivable that in the absence of particular pastors, the universal powers of the hierarchy remain alone, and that the universal Church, through the general powers of her hierarchy and of the episcopate, takes the place, as it were, of the particular Churches, and comes immediately to the aid of souls. Thus, in the fourth century, St. Eusebius of Samosata was seen going through the Eastern Churches devastated by the Arians and ordaining orthodox pastors to them, without having any special jurisdiction over them [ref. in note]. These are truly extraordinary actions, as are the circumstances which gave rise to them. [...] If, therefore, history shows us bishops fulfilling of their own accord this office of "doctor" [note] of the failing Churches, it tells us at the same time of the imperative circumstances which dictated this conduct. In order to make it legitimate, it was necessary that the very existence of religion should be involved, that the ministry of individual pastors should be entirely annihilated or rendered impotent, and that no possible recourse to the Holy See could be hoped for. In such extreme cases, the apostolic power which appeared at the beginning to establish the Gospel reappeared as if to establish it anew, for it is equivalent to giving a new birth to the Churches to preserve them from total ruin and to be their saviour. Secondly, for the exercise of this power to be legitimate, recourse to the Supreme Pontiff must be impossible, and there must be no doubt as to the value of the presumption by which the episcopate, strengthened by the tacit consent of its head, made certain by necessity, relies on his authority, which is always present and active in him. [...] and if the future reserves for the Church trials which reduce her to the difficulties of the first centuries, if the perils of the last times should go to this excess, this same voice of Saint Peter will still be heard in this extremity, and, when it calls the bishops to the last battles, it will untie, if necessary, from among the powers of the episcopate those which must be untied for the salvation of the peoples."
-Dom Adrién Grèa, On the Divine Constitution of the Church (II part. chap. X, cases of necessity)
See this interesting comment from Griff Ruby on the question of ordinary jurisdiction. It’s not entirely satisfactory, but it does open other avenues of discussion to troubleshoot:
Maybe this would be a good starting question for the conversation: what happens when, in the matter of whether a state of necessity exists, there is disagreement between (someone seen as) a pope and an (SSPX or other) bishop? Or disagreement between a bishop who has jurisdiction and a bishop who does not?
While I am no fan of Gaspers these days, I agree with Mr. Jackson here. Gaspers is not wrong in what he said in that post.
One of the big problems with sede-vacantists is that they want a simple answer to a complicated question. "Oh, there hasn't been a valid Pope since 1958 so we don't have to go along with anything coming out of Rome." Too easy, and not realistic. Declaring J 23 to Leo 14 to be "anti-Popes" is easy and convenient, but it doesn't answer the ultimate question, "Then who is the true Pope?" There has to be a true Pope, somewhere. Who is it? If sede-vacantists are so right, then they can tell us who he is. Should be simple, right?
This Fr. Lavery gave a well thought out response, but I think he's over-extending on supplied jurisdiction a bit. A bishop must be validly consecrated to have any jurisdiction. For example, an Anglican "bishop" has no valid Orders and thus no jurisdiction or power to "consecrate bishops" or "ordain priests" or "consecrate the Holy Eucharist". Obvious example I know, but let's apply the same principle to Sede bishops and priests. How can we be certain that any (or which) of them is certainly validly consecrated or ordained? And who is to decide? Many Sedes are almost fanatical in proclaiming Novus Ordo Sacraments to be invalid, (and I believe there are probably many instances where that is true), however, they never seem to want to consider that the same could, and does, apply to them.
I also don't think that the Sedes will submit to any future Pope. They've had it their way too long, picking and choosing what they want to believe when it comes to the Pope question. Like I said in a comment many months ago, I think that one day a Pope will be elected, and he will restore things to the way they should be. The TLM will be given back its rightful place, the Modernists will be excommunicated and removed, etc. etc., but there will be one flaw. He will be Novus Ordo ordained,
and the Sedes will focus on that, and proclaim him an "anti-pope", and will fight against him every step of the way, no matter what he says or does to restore the Church. Mark my words. I am NOT a prophet, anyone who pays attention in an objective way could say the exact same thing.
All that being said, I think the vast majority of sede-vacantists are just regular folks who are just trying their best to live out the Catholic Faith as best they can. Many of these people do a lot of good work in trying to expose the problems and the crisis in the Church. But as in any group, there are some who are not so much interested in seeing the end of the crisis, as they are in seeing it continue. Just like many in "Trad Inc.", and among the "conservative catholic/popesplainers".
You wrote about Sedes [sic] "...picking and choosing what they want to believe when it comes to the Pope question."
Why do you judge their motives to be based on their own desires rather than on sincere efforts to apply reason to evidence? We should all stick to reasoned arguments rather than baselessly judging other peoples' motives.
I quoted what you said, which clearly stated that sedes are basing their picks on what they want. Your statement was in se a judgment of their motives. Did you actually mean something other than what you said?
I did not judge your motives. I took your words at face value.
When you pass judgment on people, you can't complain that people take you at your word.
The work of the Church does not stop and the nature of the Church does not change just because there is no living pope.
Jurisdiction exists to create order. Jurisdiction does not exist to bring the work of the Church to a screeching halt when there is no pope. Jurisdiction does not exist for its own sake and jurisdiction is not the primary end, but rather it is a means to the work intended by Christ. And that work should never stop just because jurisdiction may seem suspended.
A local parish church, wherever it is, exists to carry on the work of the Church. If it fails to do that in a grievous way, its errors must be opposed. But if the bishop in charge will do nothing, and if there is no pope who could do something, the faithful must be careful to adhere to the authentic magisterium of the Church and to its doctrines and perennial teachings, while working to rectify the problems if possible. If conditions in that parish become impossible to tolerate, the faithful must consult their own properly formed consciences as to what should then be done.
Well stated. I am not quite certain I can always follow these discussions with the modicum of knowledge that I have regarding the subjects, but jurisdiction and visibility while related seem to be two separate issues and one must be clear on exactly what they mean. Certainly agree with supplied jurisdiction at a time of crisis in the Church, created at present by a Modernist influenced hierarchy. Awaiting S.D. Wright's response to this article, perhaps for better clarity that comes from these discussions.
All praise and thanksgiving to Our Lord Jesus Christ for establishing His Church in and with the complete fullness and authorization of His authority!!
God bless, C-Marie
I took a shot at this issue in a previous article by the way.
https://bigmodernism.substack.com/p/a-sedevacantist-thought-experiment?r=5mfttc&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true
Father Gabriel is precisely spot on. Folks nowadays waste too much time on social media, blog, youtube…listening mostly to craps. Instead, why don’t they spend time to learn Catholic Church Catechism pre Vatican 2 e.g. Catechism of Council of Trent, or at least Radio Replies…Catholic Church Catechism is pure and easy to remember, even my 10-yr-old daughter can tell exactly where the true Church is.
Radio Replies - I was not familiar with that site.
Thanks for the reference to it.
From Catechism of The Catholic Religion, by Fr. Joseph Deharbe SJ - 6rd edition, English translation from German, 1908:
Link: https://archive.org/details/completecatechis00deharich/page/n7/mode/2up
28. is it easy to recognize this one Church established by Christ?
Yes; for Christ has established a visible Church with perceptible marks so that it is easy to find her; 1.otherwise He could not have commanded us under pain of eternal damnation to apply to the Church and to hear her.
1 Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house (Matt. v. 15).
2 If thy brother shall offend against thee, go and tell the Church; and if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican' (Matt, xviii.17).
29. how is the Church of Christ visible?
The Church of Christ is visible 1. In her superiors and members; 2. In her doctrine; and 3. In the Sacrifice of the Mass and in the administration of the Sacraments.
If the Church were not visible in this manner, how would it then be possible, according to the direction of Christ and the Apostles (Hebr. xiii. 17; Mark xvi. 15, 16, and elsewhere), to obey the Prelates' (Bishops and Priests) of the Church, to hear her Teachers, to participate in her Sacrifice and Sacraments, or, in general, in her Divine Service?
It's also a Book title. Three volumes, been around for decades. Tan Books published them (and still does). The Internet Archive has at least one volume available as well.
It’s impossible to pick winners among HiE posts but this might be it so far.
It’s just a bullseye, imho.
As an aside, can we get the Big Sedes to quit sniping at themselves and everyone else, model a bit more humility and charity, and for the love of God quote demonizing “the joos”?
I am surprised how much I agreed with Matt Gaspers’ tweet, too.
These debates are wonderful. Thank you for the unique and informative role you play.
Will check out the Fatima Conference, hoping not to be disappointed.
I’m up for the Imperfect Counsel, an act of God, or the conversion of Leo.
Yes, I too thought this is the best HiE post. Finally, finally, finally, we are setting aside Leo and Francis and their antics for a moment, and discussing what/where the Church is.
As I posted several months ago, when I first came to HiE - if you're going to say "outside the Church, no salvation" then you better precisely define "Church" and "outside."
Seems to me Gaspars is working out his salvation with fear and trembling. So am I.
As far as defining "outside" the Church, the following seems like a good place to start:
During the Council of Florence (1442) Pope Eugene IV issued the bull (not an encyclical) Cantate Domino, which famously declared that no one remaining outside the Catholic Church—explicitly listing pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics—could inherit eternal life.
In his 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi (On the Mystical Body of Christ) Pope Pius XII explicitly listed the groups that are excluded or severed from the visible body of the Church. In paragraph 22 of the encyclical, he defines exactly who qualifies as a member and outlines four distinct groups that are placed outside the Church:
Schismatics: Those who refuse submission to the Supreme Pontiff or refuse communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
Heretics: Those who, after receiving baptism, obstinately deny or doubt a truth that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.
Apostates: Those who totally repudiate and cast aside the Christian faith entirely.
Excommunicates: Those who have been cut off by legitimate ecclesiastical authority through a perfect decree of excommunication for grave faults.
The only way you could be up for an imperfect council, while simultaneously agreeing with Gaspers, is if you consider supplied jurisdiction sufficient to legitimize such a council…a notion I have not yet entirely discounted.
I failed to qualify my comment. I agreed with the questions, and the demeanor, of the tweet attributed to Matt Gaspers, not with all things Matt Gaspers. And I was surprised that I agreed with them.
I do not understand the parameters of this topic well enough to have an educated opinion. But it does seem that "Imperfect Council" (as I hear the concept discussed) is an option and maybe the only currently known option to bring daylight to the current "eclipse" (or *apparent obscurity) of the Church, the other two things being pretty much out of man's hands.
Thank you for this, Mr. Jackson!
Thank you for sharing this Chris.
I'm in the fortunate and blessed position of being able to attend the TLM offered by my Parish Priest, who, though a priest of the Novus Ordo, wishes to maintain the faith of our fathers and accepts being regarded as somewhat peculiar by his surrounding priest colleagues.
Fortunately he is allowed to plough the traditional furrow unimpeded, and the fruit of his work has been extraordinary, with all the usual signs: young families, real devotion, excellent music and liturgy etc.
We recognise that there is a big problem in Rome, as the majority of your posts importantly spell out simply by reporting the stream of resulting abuses.
Nevertheless, I do not need to regard myself as Sede because I experience Christ's jurisdiction over the Catholic Church I belong to that has been handed down from the Apostles even to being fully present in the small village church I attend.
My understanding accords with what is said above, and I greatly sympathise with Catholic Churches whom I assume have been forced to call themselves Sedevacantist in order to preserve the ancient faith in their locality without destructive interference from ecclesiastical authorities.
This should never be necessary and it shames the institutional church that it is.
So, once this interregnum between valid papal authorities is past and we have a true successor of Peter back in Rome, I expect Sedes will return as one to him with great joy.
In the meantime I pray for more priests like my own!
Right, but I’m asking about the consecration of the bishop who ordained him: Was that bishop himself consecrated in the old rite by another bishop who was consecrated in the old rite?
If he was consecrated in the old rite by a bishop himself consecrated in the new rite (eg., Bishop Rifan of Campos being consecrated by Cardinal Hoyos who was consecrated in the new rite), some like myself would consider that doubtful (and therefore any orders such doubtful bishops might confer likewise doubtful).
I'm not familiar with the differences between the old and new rites so will have to research them to form a judgement. There are presumably many variations in rites of consecration across the orthodox Catholic world?
See https://novusordowatch.org/2018/06/unholy-orders-50-years-invalid-ordinations/
Was he ordained in the traditional rite by a bishop consecrated in the traditional rite?
He was ordained by a bishop who was himself ordained in the pre-conciliar Church.
This is no doubt a naive question but why do we not simply define the hierarchy as all the validly ordained and consecrated bishops (no matter SSPX, RCI, CMRI, etc) who hold to the perennial teachings of the Church?
Not a naive question. But how are we to know for certain that the Sede bishops are in fact validly consecrated? The SSPX bishops were/are. But there is definite doubt when it comes to some Sedes.
That's a separate matter. One that would merely require a private investigator rather than a room full of theologians.
It isn't a job for private investigators to determine whether a consecration or ordination is valid...
I hope that is not actually naive, because your question describes my position.
This is certainly a time in the church when charity is tested as we try to understand and follow where is the church and where is it not.
I think this Gordian knot is going to have to be eventually cut rather than untied.
Because jurisdiction is separate from orders.
Auxiliary bishops do note have to power to rule, but are able to ordain, consecrate, and bless with the fullness of the priesthood; vicars general who are not bishops do not have the power of the episcopacy, but they can most definitely exercise juridical power as given to him by the ordinary.
The laity and clergy without jurisdiction cannot just simply redefine a doctrine such as this.
Nobody redefined anything. All those bishops (auxiliary, vicar generals) work under a visible authority, not upon themselves.
The power of orders and jurisdiction are different yes, but they are not absolutely separated in the church, as the thesis falsely claims
No, no one redefined anything, but they'd like to.
Yes, both auxiliary bishops and vicars general work under and with the indulgence of an ordinary. And? Who is the ordinary over the bishops of the CMRI, RCI, and/or SSPX?
And "the Thesis" does not falsely claim anything; orders and jurisdiction are separate, which is part of the reasoning why Vatican 2's collegiality is erroneous.
Even the old Catholic Enclyclopedia says as much:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02145b.htm
If orders and jurisdiction were absolutely separated, then a lay could exercise papal authority without being a bishop.
That reasoning is completely absurd.
(And no, Pius XII didn’t said that in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis)
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19830312_poenae-canonicae_en.html
Why don't the popes ever tackle the sede question? They always revert to canon law. They lack the arguments to tackle it head on. Ergo, they ain't popes. If that presents Catholics with the problem of jurisdiction then so be it.
we have obviously had a string of horrible popes.. they have worked in many ways to destroy the Church and cause laity to leave the Church.. being silent about the sede protest churches works within their evil plans..it allows a place to go that appears safe..outside the Church..two sides of the same coin..very evil..
So those who follow the evil Pope will end up in Hell. Those who run a mile from him will end up in Hell. Only safe place is nearby but not too close. And don't believe a word he says, except when he says 'I am the Pope'?
remember the example of our anscestors in the desert..the 'whiners' were not allowed to enter the promised land..ur call..
https://www.michaeljournal.org/articles/roman-catholic-church/item/the-vision-of-pope-leo-xiii
This is called "question begging."
I lack the credentials and knowledge to respond to your question but I was forced to give myself an answer when I was expelled from the conciliar choich some 15 years ago. My options at the time were to support religious sodomy or to find out where the real church was. My conclusion was as follows and still is.
1. The "little flock" is out there and it will be there when Our Lord comes
2. The Church is in a similar situation as the Apostles and disciples were during Calvary
3. 11 went into hiding (to be preserved) 1 chose to be a traitor
4. It was a time of confusion as disciples tried to reconcile the promise with the actual situation
5. The "little flock" was there suffering until Pentecost came and all was divinely restored.
So, I chose to place myself in that position knowing very well God is in control. I can still pray and be united spiritually to my brothers and sisters who hold the same hope.
Chris,
Did Fr. Lavery's response help to heal, in any way, your hesitation to the Sede position? It seems it didn't since you must have read it before making your post, and in the post you say you are unconvinced by those such as Fr. Lavery.
I think it is a mistake on your part to need to have every possible thing known to you before acting on doing the right thing. SD Wright made this point in his last interview with Stephen.
michael
If someone like Bergoglio or Prevost could be a valid pope, then the papacy would be ineffective as to preservation of the magisterium. But we know that Christ did not institute an ineffective papacy as to preservation of the magisterium. Consequently someone like Bergoglio or Prevost can not be a valid pope.
A valid pope would not even be able to impose a new Modernist & Protestantized Mass, much less suppress the TLM, as "Saint" Paul VI did.
Your syllogism fails, at a minimum in the first proposition, in which I believe you intend to say that heretics make the papacy an ineffective teaching institution. Among other things, this ignores that popes come and go. Thus, a series of bad (unbelieving?) Renaissance popes didn’t destroy the papacy. This is especially true with the magisterium, which though it of course should be guarded by popes, is not solely defended by them. And in a broader historical context, it is interesting to consider that God willed that this crisis should escalate just as the means of accessing traditional teaching have increased.
God allowed it, He did not will it positively.
The Renaissance popes did not teach heresy. If they did they would not have been valid popes.
My point is that heretics do NOT make the papacy an ineffective teaching institution because heretics can not be (valid) popes.
Is a pope who acts the part but teaches heresy worse than one who is too busy fighting wars and whoring to teach the faith? Couldn't one say that the latter is teaching against the faith just as much as the former?
And whether this was a matter of God's permissive or positive will, we have to consider the historical circumstances in which this is all playing out.
I'm not opining one way or the other on whether heretics can be popes; I'm just wondering if the circumstances, the fact that we can learn the true faith regardless of who is pope, means that we don't have to risk the attempt of judging whether someone is a valid pope.
"Couldn't one say that the latter [committing sin] is teaching against the faith just as much as the former [teaching heresy]?"
There's a difference between committing sin and intending that sin to be a contradiction to the faith. Otherwise every sin would be an act of apostasy also.
"judging whether someone is a valid pope."
Theologically speaking, the word "judging" can mean quite different things. That is why I think it is more helpful to use other terminology, such as 'applying reason to evidence to reach a logical conclusion'.
St Catherine of Sienna certainly did not set us the example of merely learning the true faith for ourselves and ignoring the situation of an anti-pope.
Regardless of what he intends, a pope who lives a scandalous life teaches the faith shouldn't be taken seriously. I don't see a helpful distinction in your alternative terminology. And I don't know what St. Catherine would do in our circumstances, but I expect she's praying for us.
Cheers!
Naturally, Gaspers “forgets” about all the bishops of the Eastern Catholic rites who still have ordinary jurisdiction.
Next!
Except that they too all pray for a heretic antipope in the Divine Liturgy. That makes their priests and eparchs schismatics for recognizing a heretic as pope. In doing so, every Divine Liturgy where they pray for an antipope as pope constitutes a mortal sin of schism.
I am not a proponent of the non-una cum position. For me, this is not an issue. I understand it is for some others.
Did I miss something, or are there sede-vacantists among the Eastern Catholics? Serious question.
Yes, apparently Bishop Roy has said that he has been in contact with some Uniate eparchs who agree with the Sedevacantist position.
"Yes, apparently Bishop Roy has said..."
Ah hah, ... Okaaayyy
By what mechanism do you argue that the Uniate bishops still have ordinary jurisdiction? The overwhelming majority have absolutely valid orders, but jurisdiction?
I'm not being argumentative, because this is an important point that I, as a Uniate, am very curious about and believe needs to be settled.
I have argued that it is their sui juris status that may insulate them from the jurisdiction problem in the Latin church. It is my understanding that our bishops are elected internally and then presented to Rome for approval. That being said, there is still a papal mandate read at the consecration of every Uniate bishop. Further, as every Uniate church is subject immediately to the Holy See, the Holy See are able to impose whatever disciplines on them that they see fit. The 1990 Eastern Code of Canon Law is one example.
The issue of the Uniates is a very important one.
People can disagree if they wish, I do not care, but I know where the church does not reside. It does not reside in the false novus ordo church established by and after the vatican 2 revolution. It does not reside in any novus ordo (from here on in referred to as the novus bogus) priest ordained in the novus bogus rite of ordination, or in any “bishop” consecrated in the novus bogus episcopal rite of consecration. It does not reside in any of those former Ecclesia Dei communities where priests although ordained in the Traditional Catholic rite were ordained by “bishops” who were consecrated bishops in the novus bogus rite of episcopal consecration. And surely jurisdiction is not validly granted or withdrawn by any of the modernist heretic pretenders from Roncali to Bobby Prevost who are obviously not Catholic and anti-popes. Now go at it I really do not care.
Visibility is not everything. Sometimes it’s useful to reflect on the times when Jesus was hidden. Ponder the flight to Egypt or when his parents couldn’t find him for 3 days. It’s times like this that try one’s faith. The invisible is far more important than the visible.
It would seem from this that NO ordained/consecrated priests and bishops who are activelly preserving and teaching pre-Vatican II doctrine and sacraments would be, for the sake of souls that otherwise would not be saved, bestowed with validity and jurisdiction by Christ in his mercy. No?
Yes, that is VERY hopefully true "for the sake of souls." The terms "NO religion" or "NO church" are frequently used (derisively) and it's not clear if that means the new Mass only (while holding pre-Vat2 doctrine/trad teaching), or if it means the New Mass PLUS the modernist heretical garbage.
Fr. Lavery has made really good points on this topic. I really believe that traditional bishops (at least those who are appointed to govern a particular community) have ordinary jurisdiction, but received in extraordinary circumstances.
This is something that requires development yes, but there are solid points to defend it.
Today I read this quote which I think that goes in that direction:
“Due to the pressing needs. In these critical moments when heresy is rampant, not everything proceeds exactly as it was established in times of peace. However, this is precisely what Blessed Athanasius and the very holy Eusebius manifestly did: both extended their hands beyond the limits (of their jurisdiction). Now too, in the present heresy, we see the same thing happening.”
Saint Theodore the Studite - Year 758-826, Patrologia Graecae.
Note thas these saints didn’t appointed “sacramental bishops”, but real bishops with authority in the Church.
Yes, this is definitely a direction to troubleshoot.
One thing that has been on my mind lately is Dom Adrien Grea’s writings about extraordinary manifestations of episcopal jurisdiction which were necessary for the spread/growth of the Church in the early days.
He remarks in his book “The Church and its Divine Constitution” that jurisdiction seems to have been conferred “as if from itself, rather than from Peter” because of necessity.
That might be fertile ground to explore.
“History confirms that the state of necessity extended not only the duties of bishops, but also their power of jurisdiction. Dom Grea whose attachment to the pope is above all suspicion testifies (De l’Eglise et de sa divine consitution, vol. I) that not only at the beginning of Christianity did the "necessity of the Church and the Gospel" demand that the power of the episcopal order be exercised in all its fullness without jurisdictional limitations, but that in successive ages extraordinary circumstances required" even more exceptional and more extraordinary manifestations" of episcopal power (ibid., p.218) in order "to apply a remedy to the current necessity of the Christian people" (ibid. and ƒƒ.), for whom there was no hope of aid on the part of the legitimate pastors nor from the Pope. In such circumstances, in which the common good of the Church is also at stake, the jurisdictional limitations vanish and "that which is universal" in episcopal power "comes directly to the aid of souls" (ibid., p.218)…”
https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999_July/The_1988_Consecrations.htm
I am all for getting the conversation started
I will try to summarize my position on this matter, since there seems to be an interest in conducting a serious investigation into the topic, rather than simply parroting the term “epikeia” without delving into what it actually means in practice.
The main problem with the popular sedevacantism of people like Mario Derksen, Sean Wright, and even the late Father Cekada (RIP) is that it completely deprives the traditionalist clergy of legitimacy. The reasoning is quite simple: if they have no jurisdiction, they cannot administer the sacraments, they cannot preach, they cannot run seminaries, etc. In short, they could not perform any function. It is not my intention right now to elaborate on this point; I will simply limit myself to quoting the Council of Trent, which I believe makes this point very clear: "If anyone says (...) that those who have been neither righly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical authority, but come from elsewhere, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments, let him be anathema." Personally, I am not interested in doing mental gymnastics to avoid this canon. If a priest is administering the sacraments, he must be send by someone with authority, that is common sense, but sadly it is not so common anymore.
Also, it is a requisite by both the visibility and apostolicity of the Church to be identifiable legitimate pastors. The marks and attributes of the Church are external signs that help us to identify her, they are not just merely words in which you must believe. Arguments like "I believe in apostolicity, but I cannot identify the succesors of the apostles" is fideism, to put it in short. Catholicism is not based in faith alone, that faith is based on external evidence too.
So, to get in the point, as Fr. Lavery rightly said, the only bishops that meet all the requirements of being the hierarchy are the traditional bishops, since they preach the true faith, rule and sanctify their subjects. There is a famous axiom from philosophy that says: "operare sequitur esse" (the action follows the being). If they perform licitly actions that requires jurisdiction, then they must have jurisdiction. And, again, this is basic common sense. So all the work it should be on identifying under which mechanism they received this jurisdiction and what is it’s scope in the present situation.
My humble opinion on this is the following: when a traditional bishop appoints another bishop as a pastor of a flock (manifested today by the particular communities that currently exists) he make use of an extraordinary jurisdiction which is presumed to be granted tacitly by the last valid pope (Pius XII, in my opinion) through the current legislation applied with the principle of canonical equity. Through that act, is preserved ordinary jurisdiction and the offices in the Church. Due to the crisis, those offices are not perfectly structured, since they don´t have territorial delimitation, but that fact doesn´t mean that they don´t exist.
It can be said more things on this topic, but I want to present a commentary, not a post.
Below, I present a collection of quotes of theologians explaining the transmission of ordinary jurisdiction through the tacit will of the popes:
“For persecution itself, in which it is not permitted for bishops to exercise their proper [ministry] grants jurisdiction, by tacit consent of superiors, who do not want souls to perish. Hence, it is said in the Tripartite History, from Eusebius: ‘Meanwhile, Eusebius, bishop of Samosata, while being deported into exile, worked strenuously at apostolic labors. Seeing that many churches were despoiled of their shepherds, he put on military garb, and covering his head with a helmet, traveled around Syria, along with Phoenicia and Palestine, ordaining priests and deacons, and filling other offices of the church. But wherever he found bishops who agreed with him, he constituted them the heads of churches who were lacking in them.’
“And again it is said, in the same place: ‘Therefore, Athanasius proceeded through Pelusium towards Alexandria. Passing through the cities, he taught that all should avoid the Arians, and embrace the dogma of consubstantiality. In certain churches, however, he performed ordinations. And this was the beginning of another quarrel against him; because he presumed to ordain in the churches of others [other bishops].’ From this it is concluded that it is permitted even to extend jurisdiction on account of necessity; and because they did not consider this, they unjustly reprehended Athanasius.’
“Therefore elsewhere in the Tripartite History, it is said of Theodosius’s activity in the Constantinopolitan synod: ‘But he, gravely concerned that a division was again coming about, begged everyone to search for a praiseworthy man, in order to ordain him bishop. Then, agreeing with these words, they appointed Nectarius, a man of a family distinguished by nobility, bishop of the city of Constantinople. Maximus, however, who was tainted with the contagion of Apollinaris, was stripped of his pontifical dignity and ejected. Then also they passed a law, that the bishop of Constantinople should have the privileges of honor after the Roman pontiff, because it is the new Rome. They also reaffirmed the faith of Nicea, and established patriarchs, distributing provinces, so that the bishops of each diocese should not go to outside churches; for this used to be done at one time indifferently on account of the time of persecution.’”
-Fr. Diego Laínez, S.J., Disputationes Tridentinae. Text beginning “Causa autem jurisdictionis,” p. 361
“For even if an explicit confirmation and acknowledgment of the election of some bishop by the bishop of Rome should be lacking, the very communion of the brotherhood and ordination by bishops of the Catholic Church could be considered as a tacit acknowledgment and communication of episcopal jurisdiction.”
-Dieckmann, De ecclesia, Vol. 1, p. 413. 1925.
“History recounts, in praise of him, the example of Saint Eusebius, Bishop of Samosata, who, during the Arian persecution, travelled around the churches to provide them with faithful priests and pastors (see the paragraph below). But to praise this trait and others of the same kind, it is not necessary to go back to a supposed concession that never existed. Suffice it to say that, by virtue of the charity that unites all members of the Church, bishops owe each other mutual assistance, for which they can rightly presume the consent of the Roman Pontiff in cases of unforeseen necessity because "it seems obvious to us that apostolic vicars whose lives are thus threatened can and must quickly consecrate at least one bishop in order to be able to effectively preserve Christianity. But by what right will they act? Would it be by virtue of the universal jurisdiction conferred for extreme cases? No. They will rely solely on the presumed consent of the Roman Pontiff, whose intentions they interpret as wise men."
-R. Fr. H. Montrouzier s.j., "Origine de la juridiction épiscopale" [Origin of Episcopal Jurisdiction], in "Revue des sciences ecclésiastiques" [Review of Ecclesiastical Sciences]. 1872, 5th article. Part Three.II, p. 397.
"As a result of calamities beyond the reach of the law, and of violence which could not be remedied by common means, the action of local pastors may have been entirely lacking; we were thus brought back to the conditions in which the apostolate had been exercised for the establishment of the Churches and when local ministries had not yet been constituted. For, as we have already said, it is conceivable that in the absence of particular pastors, the universal powers of the hierarchy remain alone, and that the universal Church, through the general powers of her hierarchy and of the episcopate, takes the place, as it were, of the particular Churches, and comes immediately to the aid of souls. Thus, in the fourth century, St. Eusebius of Samosata was seen going through the Eastern Churches devastated by the Arians and ordaining orthodox pastors to them, without having any special jurisdiction over them [ref. in note]. These are truly extraordinary actions, as are the circumstances which gave rise to them. [...] If, therefore, history shows us bishops fulfilling of their own accord this office of "doctor" [note] of the failing Churches, it tells us at the same time of the imperative circumstances which dictated this conduct. In order to make it legitimate, it was necessary that the very existence of religion should be involved, that the ministry of individual pastors should be entirely annihilated or rendered impotent, and that no possible recourse to the Holy See could be hoped for. In such extreme cases, the apostolic power which appeared at the beginning to establish the Gospel reappeared as if to establish it anew, for it is equivalent to giving a new birth to the Churches to preserve them from total ruin and to be their saviour. Secondly, for the exercise of this power to be legitimate, recourse to the Supreme Pontiff must be impossible, and there must be no doubt as to the value of the presumption by which the episcopate, strengthened by the tacit consent of its head, made certain by necessity, relies on his authority, which is always present and active in him. [...] and if the future reserves for the Church trials which reduce her to the difficulties of the first centuries, if the perils of the last times should go to this excess, this same voice of Saint Peter will still be heard in this extremity, and, when it calls the bishops to the last battles, it will untie, if necessary, from among the powers of the episcopate those which must be untied for the salvation of the peoples."
-Dom Adrién Grèa, On the Divine Constitution of the Church (II part. chap. X, cases of necessity)
See this interesting comment from Griff Ruby on the question of ordinary jurisdiction. It’s not entirely satisfactory, but it does open other avenues of discussion to troubleshoot:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/659850404426435/posts/1361108364300632/
Maybe this would be a good starting question for the conversation: what happens when, in the matter of whether a state of necessity exists, there is disagreement between (someone seen as) a pope and an (SSPX or other) bishop? Or disagreement between a bishop who has jurisdiction and a bishop who does not?
While I am no fan of Gaspers these days, I agree with Mr. Jackson here. Gaspers is not wrong in what he said in that post.
One of the big problems with sede-vacantists is that they want a simple answer to a complicated question. "Oh, there hasn't been a valid Pope since 1958 so we don't have to go along with anything coming out of Rome." Too easy, and not realistic. Declaring J 23 to Leo 14 to be "anti-Popes" is easy and convenient, but it doesn't answer the ultimate question, "Then who is the true Pope?" There has to be a true Pope, somewhere. Who is it? If sede-vacantists are so right, then they can tell us who he is. Should be simple, right?
This Fr. Lavery gave a well thought out response, but I think he's over-extending on supplied jurisdiction a bit. A bishop must be validly consecrated to have any jurisdiction. For example, an Anglican "bishop" has no valid Orders and thus no jurisdiction or power to "consecrate bishops" or "ordain priests" or "consecrate the Holy Eucharist". Obvious example I know, but let's apply the same principle to Sede bishops and priests. How can we be certain that any (or which) of them is certainly validly consecrated or ordained? And who is to decide? Many Sedes are almost fanatical in proclaiming Novus Ordo Sacraments to be invalid, (and I believe there are probably many instances where that is true), however, they never seem to want to consider that the same could, and does, apply to them.
I also don't think that the Sedes will submit to any future Pope. They've had it their way too long, picking and choosing what they want to believe when it comes to the Pope question. Like I said in a comment many months ago, I think that one day a Pope will be elected, and he will restore things to the way they should be. The TLM will be given back its rightful place, the Modernists will be excommunicated and removed, etc. etc., but there will be one flaw. He will be Novus Ordo ordained,
and the Sedes will focus on that, and proclaim him an "anti-pope", and will fight against him every step of the way, no matter what he says or does to restore the Church. Mark my words. I am NOT a prophet, anyone who pays attention in an objective way could say the exact same thing.
All that being said, I think the vast majority of sede-vacantists are just regular folks who are just trying their best to live out the Catholic Faith as best they can. Many of these people do a lot of good work in trying to expose the problems and the crisis in the Church. But as in any group, there are some who are not so much interested in seeing the end of the crisis, as they are in seeing it continue. Just like many in "Trad Inc.", and among the "conservative catholic/popesplainers".
There doesn't have to be a true pope somewhere. Why do you think there does?
😂😂😂😂😂😂
You wrote about Sedes [sic] "...picking and choosing what they want to believe when it comes to the Pope question."
Why do you judge their motives to be based on their own desires rather than on sincere efforts to apply reason to evidence? We should all stick to reasoned arguments rather than baselessly judging other peoples' motives.
Interesting how you accuse me of judging sede-vacantists motives while judging me.
" We should all stick to reasoned arguments rather than baselessly judging other peoples' motives." 😃😃😃😃😃😃
I absolutely love the irony.
I quoted what you said, which clearly stated that sedes are basing their picks on what they want. Your statement was in se a judgment of their motives. Did you actually mean something other than what you said?
I did not judge your motives. I took your words at face value.
When you pass judgment on people, you can't complain that people take you at your word.
😂😂😂😂😂😂