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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
The same question for you as well: do you what they say their basis is for claiming to be Successors of the Apostles?
For testing purposes - I pressed the button marked "Reply" below Agata Floro's comment.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Deo gratias. "Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking care of it..." 1 Peter 5.