In my latest for Integrity Magazine, these three interested parties give their position on the upcoming consecration of Fr Michael Mary to the episcopate.
This is very problematic. A Bp Michael Mary will not be a successor to the Apostles. He does not succeed into any office. While Catholics may attend their masses, they shouldn't recognise these men as having any power of jurisdiction over the faithful. They have none.
The idea that the jurisdictional power of the episcopate is conferred with the consecration is a false idea promulgated at Vatican II. It goes explicitly against the teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corpus Christi. This is discussed by Louie Verrecchio the episode of Vatican II revisited linked here: https://greatcatholicpodcasts.substack.com/p/vatican-ii-revisited-episode-5-lumen
I'm guessing the modernists wanted to eliminate the necessity of succeeding into an office as a requirement for the legitimacy of apostolic succession as part of their ecumenical efforts. They recognise the sects of schismatics and heretics as being part of the Church of Christ, so of course they would loosen the criteria.
The Catholic Church has always taught otherwise: that consecration alone didn't make one a successor of the Apostles, rather succeeding into an office with ordinary jurisdiction was also required. In going down this path Bp Roy, those at the CMRI who adopted this error and Fr Michael Mary are actually adopting one of the errors of Vatican II.
I am glad that for the people of New Zealand that there will be a Bishop residing in their country but I cannot help but be dismayed at those who pretend to have jurisdiction when they have none. It is bad enough that priests and bishops are being created without a lawful mission. The actions of these men will generate yet more non-Catholic sects if they continue down this path.
Hi, thanks for replying and clarifying further. I'm not sure why you are using multiple accounts and referring to them. It's very confusing as I wouldn't have recognised that we had a disagreement in the first place.
RE: "Dominican theologian Fr. Charles-Vincent Héris op, the episcopal consecration creates in the consecrand "a fundamental capacity to govern and teach the Christian people..."
The key word here is "capacity." It seems to me from what I have read and heard that capacity is being equated with "something of authority." Capacity is a potential, not a reality. It isn't "something of authority." It is the capacity to accept authority if this is independently provided. For episcopal offices the Church requires that the office holder be a bishop and so she consecrates one so they have the capacity to fill the office.
Sacramental bishops don't exist in the Church. The situation of the "traditional" priests and bishops is that they have neither a formal mission from the Church nor any authority from her to do what they're doing.
In normal times they would be considered schismatics, but because of the vacancy of the Holy See they are not by those who have been given the grace to see the crisis through the lens of faith. However we do not, and cannot see or treat them as anything other than men who are acting to preserve valid sacraments in the Roman Rite.
To go further than this would be usurping authority that neither they nor we have. It will lead to the development of schismatic sects pretending to be the Catholic Church, as has happened with the Palmarians.
That is not to say that an Eastern Rite Bishop with ordinary jurisdiction couldn't fill vacant sees by appointing "traditional" bishops to them. This would give the "traditional" bishops mission and jurisdiction.
It is for this reason we must pray to Our Lady to end the crisis. It is through her Immaculate Heart that the Church shall triumph.
The Church rules in this matter and her universal teaching is quite clear. Bishops are not automatically successors to the Apostles by merit of their consecration and do not attain their full powers until they succeed into an office with ordinary jurisdiction. Your analogies don't apply.
Bp Fellay would've been the head of an organisation that has no mission from the Catholic Church. It doesn't mean that he wasn't the superior of that organisation, or that he doesn't deserve respect in the same way that the superior of any organisation might command. At a natural level this respect is appropriate.
"What objective criterion is there anymore to distinguish which of these episcopal groups is Catholic and which one is not?"
When they stop being visibly Catholic by no longer publicly professing the Catholic Faith whole and inviolate and openly profess heresy. This the same criteria by which all Catholics judge whether someone is a visible member of the Church. I'm surprised that you need to ask this question.
I'm a visible member of the Roman Catholic Church. Sectarian group divisions are a fruit of the flesh, not a work of the spirit. I pray that you'll be able to see that soon.
"Our Lady will not hear our prayers if we are openly disobedient to the most sure and solemn law of the Church."
I agree with you entirely. Let's start with the "trad" priests and bishops going and getting a mission and jurisdiction from the Church via the Eastern Rite bishops who are still Catholic. Then they will be openly obedient to the most sure and solemn laws of the Church. This is the one good thing they could do with the proposed imperfect general council - find out who these men are and develop a strategy for engaging with them.
"There were ZERO Catholic bishops without jurisdiction over a diocese, be it in partibus or residential."
False, there were missionary bishops, and all auxiliary bishops before the introduction of the titles in partibus, as the Catholic Encyclopedia explains in the article on auxiliary bishops: "Present usage requires an auxiliary, suffragan, and temporary coadjutor (used indiscriminately to mean almost the same office) to be also a titular bishop, yet the former antedate the latter by many centuries. They come down to us from Apostolic times; thus Linus and Cletus were vicars, or auxiliaries, to St. Peter at Rome; Ammianus [Anianus], to St. Mark of Alexandria; Alexander, to Narcissus (aged 116 years) of Jerusalem; St. Gregory the Theologian, auxiliary in pontificals to St. Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus..." Also, bishops in partibus have no jurisdiction at all.
Disputing the validity of trad consecrations because there is no intention to give jurisdiction (that the consecrator is not able to give) is such nonsense that no author of note has yet put forward such a thing.
A user who repeatedly passive-aggressively doesn't want to address me but still wants to reply to my comments (and who should act like a man) insists on the oxymoron of a "jurisdiction in partibus" and shows once again that he lacks basic understanding of theological and canonical notions, because, to quote Cardinal Billot (De Ecclesia, 454): "For jurisdiction is essentially a relation between a superior who has the right to obedience and a subject who has the duty of obeying. Now when one of the parties to this relationship is wanting, the other necessarily ceases to exist also, as is plain from the nature of the relationship." This means that there is no jurisdiction without subjects.
This lack of understanding is also demonstrated by his specious example of an infidel from the former territory of a now titular diocese converting and then becoming a subject of that titular bishop, which is not the case at all, since many of those former (now merely titular) dioceses are now part of another actual diocese, so the convert becomes the subject of that ordinary, e.g. Abp. Lefebvre was once the Titular Bishop of Anthedon (a city near Gaza), and if someone there converted to the Catholic Faith, he would not have become his subject, but that of the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, whose diocese that area now belongs to. Even when there was no ordinary of a particular area, no titular bishop is able to have any subjects at all nor has the Church ever permitted titular bishops to have any subjects.
Further proof of a lack of understanding is provided by trying to attribute jurisdiction to the examples given by the Catholic Encyclopedia of auxiliary bishops without a title (and thus without even any semblance of jurisdiction), who naturally, if they had jurisdiction, would not have been auxiliary bishops but ordinaries. In fact, the quoted text, when mentioning those auxiliaries who did not possess a title explicitly mentions the term "auxiliary in pontificals", which is what we today call a sacramental bishop - a bishop without a title who is consecrated merely to provide the sacraments.
I think in this case you have replied to the wrong comment and are intending to address @ellicenciadovidriera. Perhaps you might re-direct your response to him? I am appreciative of your valuable input to this discussion.
It came up in my activity feed as a response to me which made me think otherwise. It seems that all the responses are to my original comment though. I've never had a conversation sprout off from my original comment in this way before.
On the one hand, it’s better than RCI being down there in New Zealand. But I didn’t realize that Vatican 2 taught that idea about jurisdiction and episcopal consecration. I thought it was something that was just being put forth by certain fellow traditionalists.
It is my understanding that at least some of the priests of the CMRI believe this to be true. I don't believe it is a universally shared belief held by all priests of the CMRI. I suspect Bp Pivarunis believes it.
As I understand it, the CMRI believe that they operate by supplied jurisdiction. The issue is that some in CMRI believe that the traditionalist bishops are successors to the Apostles and therefore are legitimate electors/members of the hierarchy. I have not seen any claim ordinary jurisdiction, only supplied; and I am not certain that every CMRI priest understands these topics or that they all agree.
I've heard claims that the "Traditional" Bishops have more than supplied jurisdiction from multiple CMRI priests and an SGG priest. They are sure that their Bishops are successors to the Apostles. Some of these put forth a public air of being willing to submit to anything that Holy Mother Church teaches if they are shown to be wrong, but when they are shown what the Church teaches in the manuals for training priests directly contradicts their belief, they are also unwilling to conform their ideas to her truth and let it go. They are deeply attached to the idea that their view of the crisis is 100% correct, when it isn't and no-one has the full solution except God himself.
This is interesting. Could you say (if you know) what their basis is for claiming to be Successors of the Apostles? And what about the claim of those of them who say they have ordinary jurisdiction - is it the same reasoning as Bp. Roy, or something different?
It is very difficult to pin them down on this topic. I think Fr Villi Lehtoranta wrote or said something in an interview because I recall writing to him about it. He believes that the entire hierarchy has defected which is heretical, but he has inherited that belief from Fr Cekada. I suspect that is similar reasoning to Bp Roy: there are no visible Successors to the Apostles so we must be them.
Actually, I haven't. I clicked the reply button under your comment, and the reply button under Agata Floro's. This is why my question to you (starting with "This in interesting") is shown underneath your comment (starting with "I've heard claims") with an indentation to the right, and my question to her (starting with "The same question") is shown further below and in line with your comment (the one starting with "I've heard claims"), but to the right of hers (starting with "As I understand it"). The long vertical line on the left is the outer border.
Allowing for nuances between different priests, the closest I could describe it is that they believe since the traditionalist bishops are bishops, this makes them successors. I have also seen it argued that since we cannot identify the members of the hierarchy, that it has to be the traditionalists bishops. I am not certain of as to whether any believe that supplied jurisdiction also gives this status but do not think I've heard a satisfactory answer from any CMRI priest on the topic. This lack of clarity may contribute to why some laymen, such as John Lewis, may think some are claiming ordinary jurisdiction.
To summarize, "It isn't them, so it must be us."
I am not lumping them altogether here because I know they may not all agree and individual priests may be working through this. It is likely that some have never thought about it because their focus has been providing the sacraments.
As much as I dislike the sedes, what Pius XII said in Mystici has been massively overexaggerated in many circles. Whether this man will have jurisdiction or not is highly questionable, but there have been many instances in Church history, including in the New Testament Letter of Titus, where jurisdiction has been granted without recourse to the Petrine See.
The Apostles had a special commission that included the creation of every level of cleric (except Pope) that is held by bishops today. Does your example refer solely to this or to other instances?
Isn't every bishop a successor to those Apostles? Because while Pius XII does very much say in Mystici that a bishop receives his jurisdiction from the Roman Pontiff, he never excludes any other sources of jurisdiction. Thqt wasn't his purpose. All he was doing in that section was describing the nature of the episcopal office, not issuing anathemas concerning rival theories of jurisdiction.
Do you think that every time a bishop died on the south coast of India after Thomas died they sent off to Rome and waited ten years to find out from someone who had no knowledge of their diocese who was supposed to run their flock? This nonsense is a modern invention of hyperpapalists and sedevacantists who want to say that there is no pope, but absolve themselves of any responsibility to do anything about it.
If that's what you think then then you must accept as well the stipulations of John Paul II's Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis which explicitly declares that the number of Cardinal electors in a Conclave MUST NOT EXCEED 120, and if the provisions established in that document are violated then the election is null and void. Prevost's conclave had 133 Cardinal electors and is therefore, by your standard invalid, and he has no standing to rule on these consecrations.
It is Catholic doctrine that all jurisdiction comes through the Pope, not always explicitly but implicitly as well, e.g. the Eastern sui iuris churches often have autonomy in electing their bishops, just as many Western dioceses had in the distant past. One can receive ordinary jurisdiction in the Church either through appointment by canonical Authority, or through canonical election by the legitimate electors, who were given this right to elect by a previous Roman Pontiff.
What you are describing is a much more nuanced situation though than how other people interpret that doctrine. Because it all comes down to the salvation of souls. If the situation is truly as dire as these people describe, then do we really think that Christ created a Church that is so brittle that it cannot handle this situation? He would be a cruel and merciless God if that were the case.
Could you elaborate? I don't understand what you mean exactly. There is nothing controversial about what I wrote, it is what the Church has always held - that those not canonically appointed or elected received no power in the Church.
Thanks for clarifying. I have a better understanding where you are coming from and that you are referring to other instances also. I agree with Peregrinus's response below on the Catholic Doctrine. Approval from the Pope can be implicit or explicit but all jurisdiction flows through him.
Yes. Ultimately it does. The Roman Pontiff even exercised his jurisdiction to removes heretics from the Patriarchal See of Alexandria once upon a long time ago. But I don't think the idea holds that in an emergency situation, especially where those who occupy the highest offices in the Apostolic See have shown a public pattern over decades of consistently acting against the best interests of Catholics, that it is absolutely necessary for the pope of the moment to sign off on every episcopal appointment.
There is a huge difference between supposing that in a particular emergency situation you have the Pope's implicit consent (e.g. the clandestine consecrations of bishops behind the Iron Curtain with no possible recourse to the Apostolic See) versus consecrating bishops *against* the Pope's explicit orders. The former is licit, the latter is illicit and confers no jurisdiction, because, as the Church teaches, and as you said yourself, ultimately all jurisdiction flows through the Roman Pontiff, so if he denies permission and blocks the figurative channel, the river of jurisdiction cannot flow.
Now, if Prevost is not the Pope, as most of us here believe (e.g. he has explicitly denied the Church's infallible teaching on the death penalty: https://www.lifesitenews.com/analysis/tried-and-found-wanting-how-leo-xiv-chose-heresy-over-the-church/), then there is historical precedent for episcopal consecrations in the absence of a Pope - during the long interregnum in the 13th century there were 21 bishops elected by the local clergy or cathedral chapter of those 21 dioceses (as was the ancient custom, with the permission of the Roman Pontiffs), and then consecrated by neighboring bishops - without apostolic mandate because there was no Pope. After the new Pope was elected, he confirmed all of those elections and consecrations.
"Isn't every bishop a successor to those Apostles?" Strictly speaking the Church teaches that only Bishops holding offices with ordinary jurisdiction are successors to the Apostles and members of the college of bishops.
I get it. On the whole though I am tired of everybody, from internet commentators to Cardinals, taking the I’m going to do nothing and just let the Church rot strategy. The I’m going complain but then wave some book of canon law in your face as my excuse for doing absolutely nothing to solve the problems I am complaining about. Somehow I don’t think that’s going to fly at our Judgement. None of that was directed at you personally, just me venting.
I suspect the solution is that men cannot solve this crisis. The solution is to pray the Rosary, practice moral perfection and pray to Our Lady, for at the end of the day “My Immaculate Heart will triumph.” She will usher in the age of Mary that is to follow the present crisis.
If you haven’t heard the message of Our Lady of Good Success of Quito, Ecuador I’d encourage you to look into it. It has been consistently & repeatedly approved as being worthy of belief by the local dioceses since the 16th century and it prophesies about our own times, the crisis in the Church “they will be without a father”, the rule of the freemasonic sect over society and the end of the crisis. Many miracles have also proved the apparitions true, including the resurrection from the dead of the seer Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres twice.
Any thoughts or comments on Pope Hildebrand?
Has he shown himself to the public yet?
This is very problematic. A Bp Michael Mary will not be a successor to the Apostles. He does not succeed into any office. While Catholics may attend their masses, they shouldn't recognise these men as having any power of jurisdiction over the faithful. They have none.
The idea that the jurisdictional power of the episcopate is conferred with the consecration is a false idea promulgated at Vatican II. It goes explicitly against the teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corpus Christi. This is discussed by Louie Verrecchio the episode of Vatican II revisited linked here: https://greatcatholicpodcasts.substack.com/p/vatican-ii-revisited-episode-5-lumen
I'm guessing the modernists wanted to eliminate the necessity of succeeding into an office as a requirement for the legitimacy of apostolic succession as part of their ecumenical efforts. They recognise the sects of schismatics and heretics as being part of the Church of Christ, so of course they would loosen the criteria.
The Catholic Church has always taught otherwise: that consecration alone didn't make one a successor of the Apostles, rather succeeding into an office with ordinary jurisdiction was also required. In going down this path Bp Roy, those at the CMRI who adopted this error and Fr Michael Mary are actually adopting one of the errors of Vatican II.
I am glad that for the people of New Zealand that there will be a Bishop residing in their country but I cannot help but be dismayed at those who pretend to have jurisdiction when they have none. It is bad enough that priests and bishops are being created without a lawful mission. The actions of these men will generate yet more non-Catholic sects if they continue down this path.
I am not "Vadehezut Alháquime" so I haven't read your message. I suggest you find him instead.
Hi, thanks for replying and clarifying further. I'm not sure why you are using multiple accounts and referring to them. It's very confusing as I wouldn't have recognised that we had a disagreement in the first place.
RE: "Dominican theologian Fr. Charles-Vincent Héris op, the episcopal consecration creates in the consecrand "a fundamental capacity to govern and teach the Christian people..."
The key word here is "capacity." It seems to me from what I have read and heard that capacity is being equated with "something of authority." Capacity is a potential, not a reality. It isn't "something of authority." It is the capacity to accept authority if this is independently provided. For episcopal offices the Church requires that the office holder be a bishop and so she consecrates one so they have the capacity to fill the office.
Sacramental bishops don't exist in the Church. The situation of the "traditional" priests and bishops is that they have neither a formal mission from the Church nor any authority from her to do what they're doing.
In normal times they would be considered schismatics, but because of the vacancy of the Holy See they are not by those who have been given the grace to see the crisis through the lens of faith. However we do not, and cannot see or treat them as anything other than men who are acting to preserve valid sacraments in the Roman Rite.
To go further than this would be usurping authority that neither they nor we have. It will lead to the development of schismatic sects pretending to be the Catholic Church, as has happened with the Palmarians.
That is not to say that an Eastern Rite Bishop with ordinary jurisdiction couldn't fill vacant sees by appointing "traditional" bishops to them. This would give the "traditional" bishops mission and jurisdiction.
It is for this reason we must pray to Our Lady to end the crisis. It is through her Immaculate Heart that the Church shall triumph.
The Church rules in this matter and her universal teaching is quite clear. Bishops are not automatically successors to the Apostles by merit of their consecration and do not attain their full powers until they succeed into an office with ordinary jurisdiction. Your analogies don't apply.
Bp Fellay would've been the head of an organisation that has no mission from the Catholic Church. It doesn't mean that he wasn't the superior of that organisation, or that he doesn't deserve respect in the same way that the superior of any organisation might command. At a natural level this respect is appropriate.
"What objective criterion is there anymore to distinguish which of these episcopal groups is Catholic and which one is not?"
When they stop being visibly Catholic by no longer publicly professing the Catholic Faith whole and inviolate and openly profess heresy. This the same criteria by which all Catholics judge whether someone is a visible member of the Church. I'm surprised that you need to ask this question.
I'm a visible member of the Roman Catholic Church. Sectarian group divisions are a fruit of the flesh, not a work of the spirit. I pray that you'll be able to see that soon.
"Our Lady will not hear our prayers if we are openly disobedient to the most sure and solemn law of the Church."
I agree with you entirely. Let's start with the "trad" priests and bishops going and getting a mission and jurisdiction from the Church via the Eastern Rite bishops who are still Catholic. Then they will be openly obedient to the most sure and solemn laws of the Church. This is the one good thing they could do with the proposed imperfect general council - find out who these men are and develop a strategy for engaging with them.
"There were ZERO Catholic bishops without jurisdiction over a diocese, be it in partibus or residential."
False, there were missionary bishops, and all auxiliary bishops before the introduction of the titles in partibus, as the Catholic Encyclopedia explains in the article on auxiliary bishops: "Present usage requires an auxiliary, suffragan, and temporary coadjutor (used indiscriminately to mean almost the same office) to be also a titular bishop, yet the former antedate the latter by many centuries. They come down to us from Apostolic times; thus Linus and Cletus were vicars, or auxiliaries, to St. Peter at Rome; Ammianus [Anianus], to St. Mark of Alexandria; Alexander, to Narcissus (aged 116 years) of Jerusalem; St. Gregory the Theologian, auxiliary in pontificals to St. Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus..." Also, bishops in partibus have no jurisdiction at all.
Disputing the validity of trad consecrations because there is no intention to give jurisdiction (that the consecrator is not able to give) is such nonsense that no author of note has yet put forward such a thing.
A user who repeatedly passive-aggressively doesn't want to address me but still wants to reply to my comments (and who should act like a man) insists on the oxymoron of a "jurisdiction in partibus" and shows once again that he lacks basic understanding of theological and canonical notions, because, to quote Cardinal Billot (De Ecclesia, 454): "For jurisdiction is essentially a relation between a superior who has the right to obedience and a subject who has the duty of obeying. Now when one of the parties to this relationship is wanting, the other necessarily ceases to exist also, as is plain from the nature of the relationship." This means that there is no jurisdiction without subjects.
This lack of understanding is also demonstrated by his specious example of an infidel from the former territory of a now titular diocese converting and then becoming a subject of that titular bishop, which is not the case at all, since many of those former (now merely titular) dioceses are now part of another actual diocese, so the convert becomes the subject of that ordinary, e.g. Abp. Lefebvre was once the Titular Bishop of Anthedon (a city near Gaza), and if someone there converted to the Catholic Faith, he would not have become his subject, but that of the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, whose diocese that area now belongs to. Even when there was no ordinary of a particular area, no titular bishop is able to have any subjects at all nor has the Church ever permitted titular bishops to have any subjects.
Further proof of a lack of understanding is provided by trying to attribute jurisdiction to the examples given by the Catholic Encyclopedia of auxiliary bishops without a title (and thus without even any semblance of jurisdiction), who naturally, if they had jurisdiction, would not have been auxiliary bishops but ordinaries. In fact, the quoted text, when mentioning those auxiliaries who did not possess a title explicitly mentions the term "auxiliary in pontificals", which is what we today call a sacramental bishop - a bishop without a title who is consecrated merely to provide the sacraments.
I think in this case you have replied to the wrong comment and are intending to address @ellicenciadovidriera. Perhaps you might re-direct your response to him? I am appreciative of your valuable input to this discussion.
I *was* replying to him. I pressed the button "Reply" below his comment. It is just the way Substack arranges the comments.
Yes, I run into that all the time. Frustrating and confusing for all concerned. Substack needs to get that figured out.
It came up in my activity feed as a response to me which made me think otherwise. It seems that all the responses are to my original comment though. I've never had a conversation sprout off from my original comment in this way before.
On the one hand, it’s better than RCI being down there in New Zealand. But I didn’t realize that Vatican 2 taught that idea about jurisdiction and episcopal consecration. I thought it was something that was just being put forth by certain fellow traditionalists.
Hello John-
Do I understand you to say the CMRI believe their bishop (Pivarunas) has ordinary jurisdiction?
It is my understanding that at least some of the priests of the CMRI believe this to be true. I don't believe it is a universally shared belief held by all priests of the CMRI. I suspect Bp Pivarunis believes it.
As I understand it, the CMRI believe that they operate by supplied jurisdiction. The issue is that some in CMRI believe that the traditionalist bishops are successors to the Apostles and therefore are legitimate electors/members of the hierarchy. I have not seen any claim ordinary jurisdiction, only supplied; and I am not certain that every CMRI priest understands these topics or that they all agree.
I've heard claims that the "Traditional" Bishops have more than supplied jurisdiction from multiple CMRI priests and an SGG priest. They are sure that their Bishops are successors to the Apostles. Some of these put forth a public air of being willing to submit to anything that Holy Mother Church teaches if they are shown to be wrong, but when they are shown what the Church teaches in the manuals for training priests directly contradicts their belief, they are also unwilling to conform their ideas to her truth and let it go. They are deeply attached to the idea that their view of the crisis is 100% correct, when it isn't and no-one has the full solution except God himself.
This is interesting. Could you say (if you know) what their basis is for claiming to be Successors of the Apostles? And what about the claim of those of them who say they have ordinary jurisdiction - is it the same reasoning as Bp. Roy, or something different?
It is very difficult to pin them down on this topic. I think Fr Villi Lehtoranta wrote or said something in an interview because I recall writing to him about it. He believes that the entire hierarchy has defected which is heretical, but he has inherited that belief from Fr Cekada. I suspect that is similar reasoning to Bp Roy: there are no visible Successors to the Apostles so we must be them.
The same question for you as well: do you what they say their basis is for claiming to be Successors of the Apostles?
You've asked me twice unfortunately. Substack reall needs a way for compressing threads so you can see who you're replying to.
Actually, I haven't. I clicked the reply button under your comment, and the reply button under Agata Floro's. This is why my question to you (starting with "This in interesting") is shown underneath your comment (starting with "I've heard claims") with an indentation to the right, and my question to her (starting with "The same question") is shown further below and in line with your comment (the one starting with "I've heard claims"), but to the right of hers (starting with "As I understand it"). The long vertical line on the left is the outer border.
Allowing for nuances between different priests, the closest I could describe it is that they believe since the traditionalist bishops are bishops, this makes them successors. I have also seen it argued that since we cannot identify the members of the hierarchy, that it has to be the traditionalists bishops. I am not certain of as to whether any believe that supplied jurisdiction also gives this status but do not think I've heard a satisfactory answer from any CMRI priest on the topic. This lack of clarity may contribute to why some laymen, such as John Lewis, may think some are claiming ordinary jurisdiction.
To summarize, "It isn't them, so it must be us."
I am not lumping them altogether here because I know they may not all agree and individual priests may be working through this. It is likely that some have never thought about it because their focus has been providing the sacraments.
Thank you. Again, it seems that it is based on unproven suppositions and errors.
For testing purposes - I pressed the button marked "Reply" below Agata Floro's comment.
It's definitely a bug that substack needs to fix.
As much as I dislike the sedes, what Pius XII said in Mystici has been massively overexaggerated in many circles. Whether this man will have jurisdiction or not is highly questionable, but there have been many instances in Church history, including in the New Testament Letter of Titus, where jurisdiction has been granted without recourse to the Petrine See.
The Apostles had a special commission that included the creation of every level of cleric (except Pope) that is held by bishops today. Does your example refer solely to this or to other instances?
Isn't every bishop a successor to those Apostles? Because while Pius XII does very much say in Mystici that a bishop receives his jurisdiction from the Roman Pontiff, he never excludes any other sources of jurisdiction. Thqt wasn't his purpose. All he was doing in that section was describing the nature of the episcopal office, not issuing anathemas concerning rival theories of jurisdiction.
Do you think that every time a bishop died on the south coast of India after Thomas died they sent off to Rome and waited ten years to find out from someone who had no knowledge of their diocese who was supposed to run their flock? This nonsense is a modern invention of hyperpapalists and sedevacantists who want to say that there is no pope, but absolve themselves of any responsibility to do anything about it.
If that's what you think then then you must accept as well the stipulations of John Paul II's Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis which explicitly declares that the number of Cardinal electors in a Conclave MUST NOT EXCEED 120, and if the provisions established in that document are violated then the election is null and void. Prevost's conclave had 133 Cardinal electors and is therefore, by your standard invalid, and he has no standing to rule on these consecrations.
It is Catholic doctrine that all jurisdiction comes through the Pope, not always explicitly but implicitly as well, e.g. the Eastern sui iuris churches often have autonomy in electing their bishops, just as many Western dioceses had in the distant past. One can receive ordinary jurisdiction in the Church either through appointment by canonical Authority, or through canonical election by the legitimate electors, who were given this right to elect by a previous Roman Pontiff.
What you are describing is a much more nuanced situation though than how other people interpret that doctrine. Because it all comes down to the salvation of souls. If the situation is truly as dire as these people describe, then do we really think that Christ created a Church that is so brittle that it cannot handle this situation? He would be a cruel and merciless God if that were the case.
Could you elaborate? I don't understand what you mean exactly. There is nothing controversial about what I wrote, it is what the Church has always held - that those not canonically appointed or elected received no power in the Church.
Hi Eric,
Thanks for clarifying. I have a better understanding where you are coming from and that you are referring to other instances also. I agree with Peregrinus's response below on the Catholic Doctrine. Approval from the Pope can be implicit or explicit but all jurisdiction flows through him.
Yes. Ultimately it does. The Roman Pontiff even exercised his jurisdiction to removes heretics from the Patriarchal See of Alexandria once upon a long time ago. But I don't think the idea holds that in an emergency situation, especially where those who occupy the highest offices in the Apostolic See have shown a public pattern over decades of consistently acting against the best interests of Catholics, that it is absolutely necessary for the pope of the moment to sign off on every episcopal appointment.
There is a huge difference between supposing that in a particular emergency situation you have the Pope's implicit consent (e.g. the clandestine consecrations of bishops behind the Iron Curtain with no possible recourse to the Apostolic See) versus consecrating bishops *against* the Pope's explicit orders. The former is licit, the latter is illicit and confers no jurisdiction, because, as the Church teaches, and as you said yourself, ultimately all jurisdiction flows through the Roman Pontiff, so if he denies permission and blocks the figurative channel, the river of jurisdiction cannot flow.
Now, if Prevost is not the Pope, as most of us here believe (e.g. he has explicitly denied the Church's infallible teaching on the death penalty: https://www.lifesitenews.com/analysis/tried-and-found-wanting-how-leo-xiv-chose-heresy-over-the-church/), then there is historical precedent for episcopal consecrations in the absence of a Pope - during the long interregnum in the 13th century there were 21 bishops elected by the local clergy or cathedral chapter of those 21 dioceses (as was the ancient custom, with the permission of the Roman Pontiffs), and then consecrated by neighboring bishops - without apostolic mandate because there was no Pope. After the new Pope was elected, he confirmed all of those elections and consecrations.
"Isn't every bishop a successor to those Apostles?" Strictly speaking the Church teaches that only Bishops holding offices with ordinary jurisdiction are successors to the Apostles and members of the college of bishops.
I get it. On the whole though I am tired of everybody, from internet commentators to Cardinals, taking the I’m going to do nothing and just let the Church rot strategy. The I’m going complain but then wave some book of canon law in your face as my excuse for doing absolutely nothing to solve the problems I am complaining about. Somehow I don’t think that’s going to fly at our Judgement. None of that was directed at you personally, just me venting.
I suspect the solution is that men cannot solve this crisis. The solution is to pray the Rosary, practice moral perfection and pray to Our Lady, for at the end of the day “My Immaculate Heart will triumph.” She will usher in the age of Mary that is to follow the present crisis.
If you haven’t heard the message of Our Lady of Good Success of Quito, Ecuador I’d encourage you to look into it. It has been consistently & repeatedly approved as being worthy of belief by the local dioceses since the 16th century and it prophesies about our own times, the crisis in the Church “they will be without a father”, the rule of the freemasonic sect over society and the end of the crisis. Many miracles have also proved the apparitions true, including the resurrection from the dead of the seer Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres twice.
Deo gratias. "Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking care of it..." 1 Peter 5.