Interestingly (and perhaps obviously), if it is true that the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church, then its putative hierarchy would be in the same position as the schismatic Orthodox bishops, possessing mere material apostolicity (ie., episcopal continuity), but not formal apostolicity (which adds to episcopal continuity jurisdiction).
I find that ironic, since this is the charge the conciliarists level at trad bishops.
Not all of them would be in a position similar to the Eastern Schismatic bishops, only those of them who have valid orders (without which there is not even a material succession) and who are at the same time public heretics (thus, forfeiting all offices in the Church).
Those bishops who are merely in error, but have not uttered public heresy, would have formal apostolic succession - they would be part of the Hierarchy of the Church, the Successors of the Apostles. They are to be found at least among the Eastern Catholic bishops, and possible also some Latin Novus Ordo bishops as well (I know one that is well disposed and that doesn't seem to be a public heretic).
Also, I'm not sure there is a direct equivalence between thr material succession of the Novus Ordo and of Orthodox etc. Exactly what would distinguish them, whether the distinguishing arguments hold, this is what I'm thinking about at the moment.
I’ve been through all of it—the seminary questions, the TLM circuit, the SSPX arguments, going in and out trying to make it all hold together. I wanted it to work. I tried to justify it the same way you are, by leaning on exceptions and saying maybe this is just an extraordinary moment where things operate differently.
But over time you start to see the problem isn’t solved that way. The Church isn’t just a collection of valid acts floating around. It’s a living structure that has to come from somewhere. If the source of authority isn’t there, you can’t just recreate it by appealing to necessity or good intentions.
You’re right that sacraments can be valid in certain edge cases, and that’s an important point. But that was never meant to become a permanent system people build their whole religious life around. That’s where it breaks. What’s meant to cover a moment gets stretched into replacing the thing itself.
I respect that you’re trying to take care of the faithful and not burden them with things they can’t verify. I had the same concern. But the reality is, whether they check it or not doesn’t change whether the authority is actually there.
At some point you have to face it honestly. If the principle that sends and governs the clergy is absent, then what we’re dealing with isn’t a hidden continuation of normal life, it’s a deprivation of it. That’s a hard place to land, but it’s where the reasoning leads when you follow it all the way through.
You are forgetting the Eastern Catholic churches, where the bishops and priests still feed their flocks with the traditional rites of the sacraments and where the modernist errors are much less widespread (the main error present in that milieu seems to be about ecumenism and ecclesiology, and not always explicitly stated in a heretical manner).
A Traditional Eastern Catholic can often simply stay in his parish. Of course, he has to be on guard for errors from the clergy, but that is unfortunately the case with every (or almost every) Traditionalist society of priests as well - different errors for different societies, but errors nonetheless (and some heresies as well, alas, e.g. the denial of Apostolicity).
I see what you’re pointing to, Peregrinus—and it’s true the external form can look more intact in some of those places. But that still leaves the same underlying question untouched: where is the demonstrable mission and jurisdiction coming from?
Even if the rites are preserved and the errors less explicit, the Church’s structure doesn’t run on preservation alone—it has to be sent. If that link to a true, identifiable source of authority isn’t there, then it’s the same problem in a quieter form.
There is no question at all, actually. Most of the Eastern Catholic Churches do not require (and never required) an explicit papal mandate to elect or consecrate their bishops and patriarchs, whether there is a Pope at that moment or not. They have an implicit mandate from previous popes which acknowledges their authority and their immemorial tradition in proceeding in that manner. They require nothing else to function normally. That is why they are called autonomous.
And even in the Latin Church, in times when the Supreme See is vacant we know through the testimony of History that episcopal sees may be filled without a papal mandate when it is necessary, e.g. the long interregnum in the 13th century you can read about here: https://www.wmreview.org/p/the-status-of-the-churchs-hierarchy (the quote starting with "On November 29, 1268").
After that interregnum ended, the newly elected Pope confirmed all of those twenty one elections and consecrations of bishops performed during the interregnum. The same happened at the resolution of the Western Schism - the appointments and consecrations of bishops of all three obediences were confirmed by the newly elected Pope (even though some of those bishops were appointed by antipopes - an example of jurisdiction supplied due to common error to make an otherwise invalid act valid).
P.S. During the first millennium very few dioceses even in the Latin Church required an explicit papal mandate to elect or consecrate their bishop. After their bishop died, the diocesan clergy or cathedral chapter would meet and elect the new bishop. The Pope's mandate was implicit, in that he did not object to that election.
Just curious as I have forgotten more French than I ever learned but is there any possibility that the word translated in your quote of Abp. Lefebvre might have meant "irrelevant" rather than "insignificant"? Given how thoughtful he was, it seems irrelevant would be a better fit to his point.
Good question, Michael—that nuance could be there linguistically. But even if we grant the most charitable reading of Lefebvre, the larger issue still stands: relevance or irrelevance doesn’t resolve whether the authority itself was ever actually demonstrated. That’s the point everything keeps circling back to.
I think we need to look at the conciliar sect's claim to Apostolicity of government. It is certainly in a crisis of authority, indeed the Catholic Church herself has been in the same crisis prior to the existence of the conciliar sect with John XXIII. Paul VI created brand new structures of bureaucracy. Is there continuity of government, or is this restricted to the Eastern Rites?
That’s the right place to look, John. The question isn’t just whether structures exist, but whether apostolicity of **government** can actually be demonstrated—i.e., a real line of mission and jurisdiction from Peter. Without that, continuity of administration doesn’t equal continuity of authority, whether East or West.
I would like to contact you, but you say on your profile that you can't receive DMs and to use email. However, I see no email address. Could you give me your email?
I’m having trouble seeing all the comments. At the moment there are 14 (including this one), but I can only see 8-9. For whatever reason, I can’t see the replies to Louis Montfort or John Lewis. When I click on “see replies” I’m just taken to a page showing other comments, without the replies ever having become visible. Frustrating.
While I’m venting, it’s also frustrating to try and search around on the WM Review website, only to be taken back to the Substack app every time I click on something. I know this irritant can be rectified somewhere in Substack settings, and I have contacted NASA to see if they can assist.
Interestingly (and perhaps obviously), if it is true that the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church, then its putative hierarchy would be in the same position as the schismatic Orthodox bishops, possessing mere material apostolicity (ie., episcopal continuity), but not formal apostolicity (which adds to episcopal continuity jurisdiction).
I find that ironic, since this is the charge the conciliarists level at trad bishops.
Not all of them would be in a position similar to the Eastern Schismatic bishops, only those of them who have valid orders (without which there is not even a material succession) and who are at the same time public heretics (thus, forfeiting all offices in the Church).
Those bishops who are merely in error, but have not uttered public heresy, would have formal apostolic succession - they would be part of the Hierarchy of the Church, the Successors of the Apostles. They are to be found at least among the Eastern Catholic bishops, and possible also some Latin Novus Ordo bishops as well (I know one that is well disposed and that doesn't seem to be a public heretic).
Good points!
Also, I'm not sure there is a direct equivalence between thr material succession of the Novus Ordo and of Orthodox etc. Exactly what would distinguish them, whether the distinguishing arguments hold, this is what I'm thinking about at the moment.
I’ve been through all of it—the seminary questions, the TLM circuit, the SSPX arguments, going in and out trying to make it all hold together. I wanted it to work. I tried to justify it the same way you are, by leaning on exceptions and saying maybe this is just an extraordinary moment where things operate differently.
But over time you start to see the problem isn’t solved that way. The Church isn’t just a collection of valid acts floating around. It’s a living structure that has to come from somewhere. If the source of authority isn’t there, you can’t just recreate it by appealing to necessity or good intentions.
You’re right that sacraments can be valid in certain edge cases, and that’s an important point. But that was never meant to become a permanent system people build their whole religious life around. That’s where it breaks. What’s meant to cover a moment gets stretched into replacing the thing itself.
I respect that you’re trying to take care of the faithful and not burden them with things they can’t verify. I had the same concern. But the reality is, whether they check it or not doesn’t change whether the authority is actually there.
At some point you have to face it honestly. If the principle that sends and governs the clergy is absent, then what we’re dealing with isn’t a hidden continuation of normal life, it’s a deprivation of it. That’s a hard place to land, but it’s where the reasoning leads when you follow it all the way through.
You are forgetting the Eastern Catholic churches, where the bishops and priests still feed their flocks with the traditional rites of the sacraments and where the modernist errors are much less widespread (the main error present in that milieu seems to be about ecumenism and ecclesiology, and not always explicitly stated in a heretical manner).
A Traditional Eastern Catholic can often simply stay in his parish. Of course, he has to be on guard for errors from the clergy, but that is unfortunately the case with every (or almost every) Traditionalist society of priests as well - different errors for different societies, but errors nonetheless (and some heresies as well, alas, e.g. the denial of Apostolicity).
I see what you’re pointing to, Peregrinus—and it’s true the external form can look more intact in some of those places. But that still leaves the same underlying question untouched: where is the demonstrable mission and jurisdiction coming from?
Even if the rites are preserved and the errors less explicit, the Church’s structure doesn’t run on preservation alone—it has to be sent. If that link to a true, identifiable source of authority isn’t there, then it’s the same problem in a quieter form.
There is no question at all, actually. Most of the Eastern Catholic Churches do not require (and never required) an explicit papal mandate to elect or consecrate their bishops and patriarchs, whether there is a Pope at that moment or not. They have an implicit mandate from previous popes which acknowledges their authority and their immemorial tradition in proceeding in that manner. They require nothing else to function normally. That is why they are called autonomous.
And even in the Latin Church, in times when the Supreme See is vacant we know through the testimony of History that episcopal sees may be filled without a papal mandate when it is necessary, e.g. the long interregnum in the 13th century you can read about here: https://www.wmreview.org/p/the-status-of-the-churchs-hierarchy (the quote starting with "On November 29, 1268").
After that interregnum ended, the newly elected Pope confirmed all of those twenty one elections and consecrations of bishops performed during the interregnum. The same happened at the resolution of the Western Schism - the appointments and consecrations of bishops of all three obediences were confirmed by the newly elected Pope (even though some of those bishops were appointed by antipopes - an example of jurisdiction supplied due to common error to make an otherwise invalid act valid).
P.S. During the first millennium very few dioceses even in the Latin Church required an explicit papal mandate to elect or consecrate their bishop. After their bishop died, the diocesan clergy or cathedral chapter would meet and elect the new bishop. The Pope's mandate was implicit, in that he did not object to that election.
Just curious as I have forgotten more French than I ever learned but is there any possibility that the word translated in your quote of Abp. Lefebvre might have meant "irrelevant" rather than "insignificant"? Given how thoughtful he was, it seems irrelevant would be a better fit to his point.
Good question, Michael—that nuance could be there linguistically. But even if we grant the most charitable reading of Lefebvre, the larger issue still stands: relevance or irrelevance doesn’t resolve whether the authority itself was ever actually demonstrated. That’s the point everything keeps circling back to.
I think we need to look at the conciliar sect's claim to Apostolicity of government. It is certainly in a crisis of authority, indeed the Catholic Church herself has been in the same crisis prior to the existence of the conciliar sect with John XXIII. Paul VI created brand new structures of bureaucracy. Is there continuity of government, or is this restricted to the Eastern Rites?
That’s the right place to look, John. The question isn’t just whether structures exist, but whether apostolicity of **government** can actually be demonstrated—i.e., a real line of mission and jurisdiction from Peter. Without that, continuity of administration doesn’t equal continuity of authority, whether East or West.
Mr. Wright,
I would like to contact you, but you say on your profile that you can't receive DMs and to use email. However, I see no email address. Could you give me your email?
I think I can now receive dms
I’m having trouble seeing all the comments. At the moment there are 14 (including this one), but I can only see 8-9. For whatever reason, I can’t see the replies to Louis Montfort or John Lewis. When I click on “see replies” I’m just taken to a page showing other comments, without the replies ever having become visible. Frustrating.
While I’m venting, it’s also frustrating to try and search around on the WM Review website, only to be taken back to the Substack app every time I click on something. I know this irritant can be rectified somewhere in Substack settings, and I have contacted NASA to see if they can assist.
It'll be on your phone. Search in your settings for defaults or something and you can normally turn it off. That way it opens in the browser
The best solution is to delete the app. The site works better in a browser.