Thank you for this post, It touches some thoughts I've had, but much more in detail.
A residential bishop is a successor of the apostles, but is a successor of the apostles by Divine institution necessarily a residential bishop? Or, is this rather a juridical construct?
Thanks Mark. No, I think the point here is that a successor of the Apostles is one who has and exercise the threefold power of teaching, governing and sanctifying. This is normally the diocesan bishop, but there may be equivalents (like military ordinaries etc).
So, to be clear, regarding all of the Eastern Orthodox, Coptic and other churches with Apostolic origin, it is your belief that bishops in those communions have no authority over the faithful, as these bishops are not now in union with the Bishop of Rome?(what does that mean exactly in the circumstances of the present day?) Notwithstanding, of course , that in the minds of all these bishops, their authority comes from their founding Apostles and has no connection, I mean totally zero, with whoever is the Pope of Rome, nor on whatever the Pope of Rome says or believes, or doesn't.
To elaborate, my bishop is not in any way in union with the bishop of Rome. I have a German friend whose Latin Rite bishop is most definitely in union with Rome, and this bishop has yet to be criticized, much less disciplined, for having fake whales in his churches. (See link). I have never, ever heard of this sort of thing happening in any Eastern Orthodox church. Does tolerating this sort of thing from a Latin rite part of what it means to be in union with the Bishop of Rome? https://youtube.com/shorts/vEtBwO_TR0k?si=oNGW4Z0b7TpISB9z
"In union with Rome" means that the bishop, priest, deacon, monk, nun, or lay person submits to the authority of the Roman pontiff. He or she obeys his commands and assents to his instructions. Further, the individual adheres to all of the doctrines, dogmas, and disciplines of the Catholic Church.
Just because that (you mean Roman) rite bishop has not been disciplined by the Holy See, does not mean that if he were, he would be bound to submit to that discipline.
The Eastern schismatics refuse to obey; that's the difference, not whether they were or are disciplined or not.
So that means, when you say obey, we would have to abide by Vatican II and the possibility that a Pope could impose changes to our rite that he did to the Roman Rite. Not seeing any upside to that, do you?
No, the men who have occupied the See of Peter since the death of Pius XII have done so illegally, because of their open & public heresy before being elected to office, which made them ineligible.
In addition to submission to the Roman Pontiff the other two conditions for being a member of the Church are 1. Baptism 2. Confession of the Catholic faith.
As to the question: "Could a Pope impose changes to the rite that he did?" The disciplinary laws of the Church are covered by the protection of the Holy Ghost, so that any changes would be both for the sanctification of souls and would not negatively cause them any spiritual harm. In the case of the reforms undertaken as a result of Vatican II, these have been both harmful to souls causing a massive loss of faith among the members of the Church. Which is another way of demonstrating that such changes did not come from legitimate authority.
This is almost like the "imagine you didn't have breakfast yesterday" meme, but it's actually true. Why would the Pope *substantially* alter a given liturgical rite? The answer is, "he wouldn't."
Pope St. Pius V's standardization of the Roman missal did not *substantially* alter the sacrifice of the mass. Notwithstanding his right to do so as the sovereign, why would he do otherwise?
Imagine the Greek Patriarch for example moving the Proskomedia and making it a public prayer with involvement of the people? (I've actually seen this suggestion made recently, but that's another issue). Or suppressing the Epiklesis? You can't, right? It's impossible.
That being said, the Holy See did require revisions be made to the Greek liturgical books to remove errors and heresies upon their return to unity with the Church at various times following Photius's and Caerularius's schisms. And they were accepted by the Uniates at those times.
Please allow a few questions to better understand your thinking : I am wondering how could anyone be a true Shepherd of the Church without actually taking care of the flock of Christ, that is of those who have kept the true Faith and do not adhere to the errors of Vatican II. (?)
In other words, if we were to posit the question a bit differently : do you believe that traditional Catholics are the flock of Christ, or are those who adhere to the Vatican II institution the flock of Christ? Or both?
If you believe that those who are labeled today the «traditional Catholics» are the true flock of Christ, in the theory of the «Bishop(s) in the wood» (this being said with all respect for the theory) we would then have true Shepherds who do not actually govern the flock of Christ on the one hand, and we would have on the other hand the flock of Christ being actually (de facto) governed by people who are not the true Shepherds of the Church.
I am not sure what your thinking is but it seems to me that:
- either those adhering to Vatican II are members of the flock of Christ and therefore, since we have a different Faith, different sacramental forms and different «leaders» and are therefore two different institutions, we are not then the Church of Christ, but a sect;
- or those refusing Vatican II are the members of the flock of Christ and therefore those who govern them de facto are necessarily the Shepherds of the Church.
I would love to hear what you have to say not only regarding the Shepherds, but also regarding the flock. Are you saying that traditional Catholics are not the flock fo Christ, or that they are, or that both those adhering to the Vatican II religion/Church and those refusing it are the flock of Christ? And, if traditional Catholics are the flock of Christ, how would this be compatible with them being governed by non-Shepherds, while the true Shepherds do not actually govern them...?
Thank you for your reply. I shall try to answer your questions as best I can.
“I am wondering how could anyone be a true Shepherd of the Church without actually taking care of the flock of Christ, that is of those who have kept the true Faith and do not adhere to the errors of Vatican II. (?)
“In other words, if we were to posit the question a bit differently : do you believe that traditional Catholics are the flock of Christ, or are those who adhere to the Vatican II institution the flock of Christ? Or both?”
I think that Catholics are the flock of Christ; their status as Catholics is determined by the criteria mentioned by Pope Pius XII; their membership is compatible with a degree of error in good faith about what they should profess, and not completely destroyed by verbal adherence to Vatican II in good faith; and that thus there are Catholics are found both inside and outside what you call the Vatican II institution.
Further, it is possible for members of the flock of Christ to be deprived of legitimate shepherds; certainly on a diocese by diocese scale, but I think it is possible for this to be so even on a much bigger scale especially at the end of the world (whether this is the end or not, I do not know).
“If you believe that those who are labeled today the «traditional Catholics» are the true flock of Christ, in the theory of the «Bishop(s) in the wood» (this being said with all respect for the theory) we would then have true Shepherds who do not actually govern the flock of Christ on the one hand, and we would have on the other hand the flock of Christ being actually (de facto) governed by people who are not the true Shepherds of the Church.”
If there are indeed surviving residential bishops governing their flocks, their flocks are indeed part of the flock of Christ. We, however, are deprived of those true and legitimate shepherds. What we have in their place is, in my view, an entirely justified situation of certain men being set aside to receive holy orders to “lead” us, but in a de facto, provisional and conditional way – again, justified by the circumstances. I hope you understand that there is no disrespect intended towards you or any clergy there. I have discussed this matter here: https://www.wmreview.org/p/leo-xiii-duties-of-laymen
“I am not sure what your thinking is but it seems to me that:
- either those adhering to Vatican II are members of the flock of Christ and therefore, since we have a different Faith, different sacramental forms and different «leaders» and are therefore two different institutions, we are not then the Church of Christ, but a sect”
This does not seem to follow. I have argued in Zero Marks, the “Conciliar/Synodal Church” is not the Church, but also not a separate sect; it is a social reality made up of Catholics and non-Catholics, rather like various aggregations or even societies of which we are aware (e.g., the USA). There remain in the C/S milieu a number of Catholics (perhaps many) who are accidentally divided from us and, yes, professing errors and so on, and mistaken about the legitimacy of their leaders, but they remain united to us, in a way comparable to the Great Western Schism (though all analogies limp). See here: https://www.wmreview.org/p/rupture-journet
“- or those refusing Vatican II are the members of the flock of Christ and therefore those who govern them de facto are necessarily the Shepherds of the Church.”
I don’t think that the legitimacy (in a legal sense of being legitimate shepherds, as opposed to the justification of what the clergy do) follows from this at all.
“I would love to hear what you have to say not only regarding the Shepherds, but also regarding the flock. Are you saying that traditional Catholics are not the flock fo Christ, or that they are, or that both those adhering to the Vatican II religion/Church and those refusing it are the flock of Christ? And, if traditional Catholics are the flock of Christ, how would this be compatible with them being governed by non-Shepherds, while the true Shepherds do not actually govern them...?”
I think I’ve answered this. I also will add that I don’t think, until recently, most Catholics saw themselves as being governed by traditionalist bishops, in the sense of them being the legitimate authorities; and that even if they did, mistakes about such matters are inevitable in our time and of no great problem for an explanation (even if they lead to deleterious consequences in practice).
Moving to your next message:
If you were to say that the flock of Christ is both in the Novus Ordo (in those still holding the Faith) and in Tradition:
- what advice should be given to this part of the flock that is still in the Novus Ordo: leave the Novus Ordo and join Tradition, thus exposing themselves not to be governed by the true Shepherds of the Church - or remain in the Novus Ordo, thus exposing their Faith to danger?
In probably 99% of cases, they are already not goverened by true shepherds, but by illegitimate usurpers and intruders. So yes, I would advise them to leave the Novus Ordo and to seek out a place – as they probably have already been trying to do – where they can practice the religion of their grandparents in its integrity. Obviously there is no one place I would point them, because the nature of the situation is massive obscurity.
We both think it is important that the true status of traditionalist bishops be understood, although what this is is debated. I do largely agree with the views expressed by the RCI and the SSPX, namely that they are not our legitimate superiors, and so are (in theory, even if not in practice) limited in what they can do. I suppose that, if I am right, there is a risk in being governed by those who do believe that they are the legitimate authorities, as this could lead to the formation of a sect. But in the absence of a Roman Pontiff, danger is everywhere.
- what advice should be given to this part of the flock that is within Tradition : leave Tradition and join the Novus Ordo, thus exposing their Faith to danger - or remain in Tradition, thus exposing themselves to be governed by those who are not the true Shepherds of the Church?
Definitely not join the Novus Ordo. My advice would be to be aware of the situation, to be careful, cautious, and prudent. Deal with priests whose formation seems, as far as you can tell, to be good; trust their advice in the confessional and about the catechism; do not make them into your pope or gurus, such that their opinions on the crisis come to be treated as obligatory or infallible.
Is the situation such that one has today to choose to be either in the Faith and separated from the true Shepherds on the one hand or away from the Faith but submitted to the True Shepherds of the Church on the other hand?
No. Because the Novus Ordo bishops are, by and large, as far as we can tell, either clearly illegitimate or AT BEST doubtful cases.
And if neither the Novus Ordo Bishops nor traditional Catholic Bishops are the true Shepherds of the Church, shouldn't the Faithful leave both the Novus Ordo Bishops and traditional Catholic Bishops and become home aloners until the true Shepherds can be identified?
No, this doesn’t follow. I think the traditionalist clergy are justified in what they do; and even if I was wrong about that, the laity would be justified in approaching them for the sacraments etc.
Respectfully trying to find a way that makes sense... Most of your readers, I believe, want to be Catholic. For this, they need not only to keep the Faith, participate to the sacraments of the Church but also to be governed by the lawful Shepherds of the Church. Is it the case that you cannot hold the three together today? Shouldn't this question of who are the legitimate Shepherds of the Church be investigated equally with the question of where is the true Faith before deciding to attend a chapel/church today as always?
Some of this is answered above. But as to the middle point (“Most of your readers, I believe, want to be Catholic. For this, they need not only to keep the Faith, participate to the sacraments of the Church but also to be governed by the lawful Shepherds of the Church. Is it the case that you cannot hold the three together today?”), the nature of the crisis today is that we are deprived of access to those legitimate authorities. We are, thank God, not deprived of clergy able to “lead” us in a de facto, conditional way, and provide the sacraments. If, as in one the articles linked above, a large number of soldiers were cut off from their officers, no one would object to an arrangement in which some of them acted in a way comparable to officers, for the sake of the common good, so long as this arrangement did not become confused such that these men started acted like Colonels or, God forbid, Kings.
I have recently been accused by Fr Lavery of evasiveness or refusal to reply, simply because I did not wish to engage with him. I hope the fulness of my reply here, and in the article below which we are commenting, shows that this is far from the case.
Thank you for your kind reply. I will consider it carefully and come back to you if I think it is useful. I agree with multiple things you said and have my doubts on some others. But this message is mostly to acknowledge that I have seen and read your reply, although the day has been busy...
Thank you for your generous efforts. Your good will is not something I doubt of, nor the usual seriousness of your research.
Sean, what of we Uniates? The overwhelming majority of our clergy and episcopacy hold valid orders, but on a surficial reading, that makes them no different than the Eastern schismatics. That being said, our churches were all established in or returned to union with the Catholic church under true reigning popes. Further, our constitution as sui juris churches subject only to the Holy See seems to me to put our clergy in a unique position vis a vis jurisdiction.
Perhaps it is in the Eastern Catholic (i.e. Uniate) churches that most or all of the Successors of the Apostles are to be found today, for they have valid orders, and in some cases their bishops do not even de iure require explicit appointment by the Pope.
Also, they often do act as shepherds, unlike the majority of Latin Novus Ordo bishops.
For an Eastern Catholic layman, unless his pastor or bishop publicly confesses heresy, there seems to be no essential obstacle to simply remaining in his parish (but on guard against modernist errors, of course).
If you were to say that the flock of Christ is both in the Novus Ordo (in those still holding the Faith) and in Tradition:
- what advice should be given to this part of the flock that is still in the Novus Ordo: leave the Novus Ordo and join Tradition, thus exposing themselves not to be governed by the true Shepherds of the Church - or remain in the Novus Ordo, thus exposing their Faith to danger?
- what advice should be given to this part of the flock that is within Tradition : leave Tradition and join the Novus Ordo, thus exposing their Faith to danger - or remain in Tradition, thus exposing themselves to be governed by those who are not the true Shepherds of the Church?
Is the situation such that one has today to choose to be either in the Faith and separated from the true Shepherds on the one hand or away from the Faith but submitted to the True Shepherds of the Church on the other hand?
And if neither the Novus Ordo Bishops nor traditional Catholic Bishops are the true Shepherds of the Church, shouldn't the Faithful leave both the Novus Ordo Bishops and traditional Catholic Bishops and become home aloners until the true Shepherds can be identified?
Respectfully trying to find a way that makes sense... Most of your readers, I believe, want to be Catholic. For this, they need not only to keep the Faith, participate to the sacraments of the Church but also to be governed by the lawful Shepherds of the Church. Is it the case that you cannot hold the three together today? Shouldn't this question of who are the legitimate Shepherds of the Church be investigated equally with the question of where is the true Faith before deciding to attend a chapel/church today as always?
Hello Mgr., I just wanted to thank you for your efforts and excellent exposition of these important questions regarding the crisis.
Years ago I stumbled upon a book titled "Sede Vacante!" written by a certain Griff Ruby, who I found did the best and most comprehensive study and application of traditional Ecclesiology to today's crisis I have ever found to date, at least in the English language, and many of the conclusions he reached in his work are in essence the idea of the traditional clergy and hierarchy being the true hierarchy of the Church, and consequently, the right of the traditional clergy to bring an end to this period of Sede vacante. I know nothing else about who Griff Ruby is or what kind of person he is, but just based off that study of his I have a great admiration for him despite the disregard given to him from the few people I've met who do know him on account of his conclusions drawn.
I would definitely recommend this study if you are not already familiar with it as I find the scholarly work done in aggregating as much English language ecclesiology as possible is excellent.
You are the first traditional Bishop to my knowledge to tackle these questions of importance in so graceful and professional a manner, and give these questions and points the exposure they need and deserve, for which I am very much grateful. I pray that you may continue to do God's work in helping the Church drive forward the discussion of Ecclesiology and its proper application to today's crisis, as I know that a proper study and use of what we have been gifted by the theologians of the Church in times past will surely provide us the answers we need, given time and God's grace and good pleasure.
May God bless you Neyoriquans. I have M. Ruby's books and was pleased to be able to meet him at the last Fatima Conference in Spokane, WA. United in prayers!
There is no opposition between submitting to your lawful superiors and remaining in the True Faith. If your parish priest is a public heretic, then you have no parish priest, if your bishop is a public heretic, then you have no bishop, and in such a case you don't have to submit to any man (since there is no pope either). Traditionalist priests and bishops have no authority over the faithful (for no one has given it to them), so even if they were to ask for your submission, you are not obligated to give it (in fact, I would argue you are obligated to refuse it rather than to recognize as a pastor he who has not been established as one by the lawful Authority).
Also, if your parish priest or your bishop is not using the approved and received rites of the Church (which means either the TLM or Eastern Catholic rites), then even if he is not a public heretic but merely in error, in most cases it is morally impossible for you to be led by him, for we are bound to avoid the non-Catholic rites that he uses for the sacraments. In such a case, it would be prudent to avoid his teachings altogether, because they would most probably be tainted by Novus Ordo errors.
But in any case, you must always remain in the True Faith. We are most of us now but sheep without a shepherd, yet the Faith is what sustains us, along with the traditional sacraments that we can receive from any validly ordained priest who is a Catholic. That is our right, and it is our duty as well, to nourish our souls. If you have such a TLM or an Eastern Catholic Liturgy nearby, to stay home alone would be to expose your soul to a very real danger of being lost, which you must not do.
P.S. Griff Ruby's theory that the Traditionalist bishops are the true hierarchy of the Church is dangerous: first, because no lawful Authority bestowed to them the power to rule in the Church, or to teach, which means that they can't be the Successors of the Apostles (who must have the threefold power of the Apostles to teach, rule and sanctify - they would only have the last one), and second, because it would mean that the Church is at this moment no longer Apostolic, since there would be no Successors of the Apostles. The argument that one day there would again be Successors doesn't fly, since all it would mean is that the Church would one day again be Apostolic, meaning that now it is not - this we know to be impossible because the four notes (incl. Apostolicity) will always identify the True Church, and any society which does not possess all four is not the Church, and also because the First Vatican Council infallibly teaches that there will be shepherds and teachers in the Church until the end of time.
That question does not exist for a Catholic, because of the infallibility of the Extraordinary Magisterium.
Instead of trying to make the Church's doctrine conform to your interpretation of the Crisis, make your interpretation of the Crisis conform to the Church's doctrine.
The Second Vatican Council, if it was ever legally convoked in the first place (i.e. if John XXIII was a true pope), did not last long and promulgated from little to nothing at all, depending on whether Montini was a false pope from the very beginning or if he lost his office after his election. The Supreme Authority of the Church will have to give a pronouncement on that, but right now it is sufficient to know that the documents of Vatican II that contain errors contrary to the Faith were not promulgated by the Roman Pontiff (and thus were not promulgated at all), because of the infallibility of ecumenical councils. How do we know that? Because Our Mother the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church teaches it to us, and God has revealed it to Her.
The CMRI's Fr Lavery's presented a careful and measured presentation on this subject using only orthodox sources and reaching no rushed or heretical conclusion having started from an orthodox 'block'. He says plainly where the church is not - in the V2 abomination - and therefore reasonably points to the promised succession as located in the valid, faithful traditional bishops. The Cassiciacum attempt characteries the body of the Church as the heretical foul husk of the Novus Ordo while seemingly the soul of the Church becomes some disembodied 'ghost' haunting traditionalists with out any means to take up residency - it is creepy Archbishop Thuc was given faculties to consecrate bishops by Pius XII without seeking consultation given Thuc's being situated in a hostile country with few if any means of communicating with His Holiness. Abp Thuc continued this papal mandate after the V2 revolution operating on a tacit mandate to continue Christ's Church for the salvation of souls. The tacit 'go forth' with all its attendant authority can only be found in the Faith. There is no 'go forth' belonging to the residential Novus Ordo and how could there be such hidden under a bushel with some unknown and unheard of bishop?
thank you for this article which does bring considerable light (contra the critics) to a very difficult subject; I also agree with your position, that there has to be actual successors to the Apostles present in the Church until the end of time. I believe that both Conclavism and "Home Alone-ism" are false solutions to this present crisis.
The first, because the past Conclaves of Sede bishops have elected "Popes" with no authority, and the latter, because it deprives the faithful of the means to nourish their spiritual lives and save their souls; in other words a tradi "operation suicide".
Thank you also for the links to the related articles; I might have read them before, but they are also very helpful.
Catholics should know that valid sacraments don't necessarily confer sanctifying grace, e.g. in the Orthodox churches.
A new substack by "Louis Montfort" seeks to show that demonstrable Jurisdiction & Mission are needed for valid & efficacious sacraments. In one of "Louis Montfort's" replies, he says: "...the Church has never taught that necessity or uncertainty can generate apostolic mission. Canonical provisions address acts under doubt—they do not establish offices or supply the authority to constitute hierarchy.
"So the question remains: if mission must come from the Roman Pontiff, where is that transmission publicly demonstrable today?"
There is no need to establish offices, though as an act of jurisdiction that also may be supplied by the Church or by Christ. If a false pope is believed to be a true pope by a great part of the faithful, there is common error, and thus his acts of appointing bishops to sees are valid due to supplied jurisdiction (if that appointee is a Catholic, of course). Those sees were established by true popes long ago, there is no new office being established, there is just the act of filling a vacant see. This was done without the pope during the long interregnum in the 13th century, and for most of the first millennium as well, when the local clergy elected their bishops after the see became vacant and the popes usually did not interfere.
Peregrinus—You’re burying a distinction the Church has always guarded.
Supplied jurisdiction addresses specific acts in cases of common error or doubt—it does not validate a false source or extend to the creation or transmission of office itself.
If a “false pope” could supply jurisdiction simply by being widely believed, then jurisdiction would no longer be tied to truth or lawful mission—it would be reducible to perception. That contradicts the Church’s own principle:
“Jurisdiction… is conferred only through the Roman Pontiff” (Pius XII).
Common error can supply for acts where jurisdiction already exists in principle. It does not turn an invalid or unproven authority into a real one, nor does it justify a chain of appointments flowing from it.
As for historical elections: local clergy electing bishops was never independent of the Church’s juridical order—it operated within it, with recognition, confirmation, and ultimately subordination to Rome. It wasn’t a system where authority arose from below when the head was absent—it presupposed the head.
So the same question remains:
who today can demonstrate that their jurisdiction actually flows from the Roman Pontiff—not from assumption, not from common opinion, but from lawful mission?
Until that’s shown, appealing to “supplied jurisdiction” doesn’t resolve the problem—it assumes what it needs to prove.
Have you read the Wilmers quote in this article? Because you are arguing against what he teaches in the second paragraph.
It is not the false pope who supplies jurisdiction (how could he supply something he doesn't possess?), but either the Church, or Christ Himself (in cases where the Church is not able to supply).
Local clergy electing their bishop in the first millennium was very much a case of autonomy, just like the Eastern Catholic churches have even now. If Rome did not interfere by objecting to a bishop elect, then it proceeded entirely on its own, with the assumption of an implicit authorization. And as you can see from the long interregnum from the 13th century, it functioned even when there was no Roman Pontiff. How do you square that with your question?
It's not that authority came from below, just like it doesn't come from below in the election of the Roman Pontiff, or in the election of a head of an Eastern Catholic sui juris church. It's just the electors designating a person to whom God will grant ordinary jurisdiction - through the Roman Pontiff, but not always explicitly, and, apparently, as the history and practice of the Church shows, even when there is no living Roman Pontiff at that moment.
Btw, the same principle is true even in the secular realm, e.g. in elective monarchies (such as the HRE) the authority of the king or emperor doesn't come from below, the electors simply designate the person to whom God will grant the authority. And the same applies to republics as well.
I read the WM Review piece, and it’s clear the author is trying to grapple seriously with the present confusion. There’s an effort to hold together the Church’s indefectibility while acknowledging the visible breakdown, and that’s not nothing.
Where I would press a bit further is this: describing the situation as complex or difficult doesn’t resolve the underlying question. The Church has always taught that authority, to act in her name, must be traceable and public in its source. If that cannot be shown, then we’re not just dealing with murky circumstances, but with something lacking a necessary foundation.
I do think the article recognizes the tension, and that’s to its credit. But the next step is to follow that tension to its conclusion, even if it leads somewhere uncomfortable.
As always I appreciate your thoughtful and measured prudence. I believe we will only know the answer to many of these questions, and this crisis in general, upon its resolution. Articles such as yours help guide us in what not to adhere to even though they can not answer what is theologically certain or conclusive to non-magisterial judgment. And in the meantime, "...keeping the faith, raising our children, evangelising, and in the case of the clergy teaching, administering the sacraments, and so on..." to the best of our ability in a time of invincible ignorance, including praying the Rosary as one of the two last means mentioned at Fatima, is the best advice to adhere to Catholicism free of the heresy of Modernism.
Your article is very valuable but I don't see why are now uncertain that the Church requires the existence of bishops with ordinary jurisdiction at all times.
First of all, we know that to be a Successor of the Apostles one must have the threefold power of the Apostles to teach, rule and sanctify. Only bishops who possess ordinary jurisdiction have all three. Thus, only they are truly the Successors of the Apostles.
Second, we know that there will be shepherds and teachers (those who have the power to rule and to teach) in the Church until the end of time, since this is what the First Vatican Council infallibly teaches. Thus, we know that they exist now as well, since we are not yet at the end of time (the Antichrist has not revealed himself, and that 3.5 year sequence of events that follows his appearance has not started).
Third, we know that the True Church will always be identified by the four notes (which includes Apostolicity), and that any society which does not possess all four is not the Church. Thus, even today, just like always, the Catholic Church possesses all four notes, incl. Apostolicity, which signifies an uninterrupted both material and formal Apostolic Succession.
Applying all of that, if at this time there are no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, then there are no teachers and shepherds (which we know to be impossible because of Vatican I), and there are no Successors of the Apostles, which would mean that that the Church is at this moment no longer Apostolic and that the Apostolic Succession has been broken.
The argument that the Church maintains the Succession in potentia and that one day there would again be Successors of the Apostles doesn't fly, since all it would mean is that the Church would one day again be Apostolic, meaning that now it is not, which would mean that it has for a time lost the note of Apostolicity, and thus it is not the True Church.
It is thus quite certain in faith that there are necessarily today (as always) bishops who possess ordinary jurisdiction in the Church. If it seems hard to accept that there are such among the Latin Novus Ordo bishops (though it may be possible, and I know at least one who is well disposed, and who does not seem to be a public heretic), then it is much easier to accept that they are to be found at least among the Eastern Catholic bishops, who possess valid orders and feed their flocks with the traditional rites of the sacraments. And even if every one of those bishops were to hold many errors, we cannot in justice simply assume that for every single one of them those errors would rise to the level of public heresy and loss of office.
Which theologians have you been reading that have lowered your degree of certainty on this matter, namely, the necessity of the presence of apostolic successors in the world and that no interruption of this presence can happen? In your previous articles, the theologians quoted all supported your level of certainty on this Catholic teaching. I've yet to read any theologian at all giving a minority position on this that such is possible.
Hi Pacelli. Like I said, it's still my default position. But some of the arguments around moral continuity and what Billot and others said about false or doubtful claimants in this context have given me some pause, as have some things about the effect of the force of law. I set some of it out in a footnote of Zero Marks.
I think many of the readers would be grateful (I certainly would) if you could please expound on that, and also point out the specific footnote to which you refer.
Then we could appreciate the complexities better, and perhaps some of us can help in some of the things that are giving you pause.
On page 3, an AI translation of the entire section was provided by a forum member, so as to give the full statement and context of what Lainez was explaining. I think reading that thread may assist readers in better understanding these issues.
Thank you for this post, It touches some thoughts I've had, but much more in detail.
A residential bishop is a successor of the apostles, but is a successor of the apostles by Divine institution necessarily a residential bishop? Or, is this rather a juridical construct?
I'm out of my depth here. Thx again.
Thanks Mark. No, I think the point here is that a successor of the Apostles is one who has and exercise the threefold power of teaching, governing and sanctifying. This is normally the diocesan bishop, but there may be equivalents (like military ordinaries etc).
So, to be clear, regarding all of the Eastern Orthodox, Coptic and other churches with Apostolic origin, it is your belief that bishops in those communions have no authority over the faithful, as these bishops are not now in union with the Bishop of Rome?(what does that mean exactly in the circumstances of the present day?) Notwithstanding, of course , that in the minds of all these bishops, their authority comes from their founding Apostles and has no connection, I mean totally zero, with whoever is the Pope of Rome, nor on whatever the Pope of Rome says or believes, or doesn't.
Correct: Those bishops have no authority over the faithful, as their apostolicity is merely material, and not formal.
So what exactly, then, does it mean “to be in union with Rome”?
To elaborate, my bishop is not in any way in union with the bishop of Rome. I have a German friend whose Latin Rite bishop is most definitely in union with Rome, and this bishop has yet to be criticized, much less disciplined, for having fake whales in his churches. (See link). I have never, ever heard of this sort of thing happening in any Eastern Orthodox church. Does tolerating this sort of thing from a Latin rite part of what it means to be in union with the Bishop of Rome? https://youtube.com/shorts/vEtBwO_TR0k?si=oNGW4Z0b7TpISB9z
"In union with Rome" means that the bishop, priest, deacon, monk, nun, or lay person submits to the authority of the Roman pontiff. He or she obeys his commands and assents to his instructions. Further, the individual adheres to all of the doctrines, dogmas, and disciplines of the Catholic Church.
Just because that (you mean Roman) rite bishop has not been disciplined by the Holy See, does not mean that if he were, he would be bound to submit to that discipline.
The Eastern schismatics refuse to obey; that's the difference, not whether they were or are disciplined or not.
So that means, when you say obey, we would have to abide by Vatican II and the possibility that a Pope could impose changes to our rite that he did to the Roman Rite. Not seeing any upside to that, do you?
No, the men who have occupied the See of Peter since the death of Pius XII have done so illegally, because of their open & public heresy before being elected to office, which made them ineligible.
In addition to submission to the Roman Pontiff the other two conditions for being a member of the Church are 1. Baptism 2. Confession of the Catholic faith.
As to the question: "Could a Pope impose changes to the rite that he did?" The disciplinary laws of the Church are covered by the protection of the Holy Ghost, so that any changes would be both for the sanctification of souls and would not negatively cause them any spiritual harm. In the case of the reforms undertaken as a result of Vatican II, these have been both harmful to souls causing a massive loss of faith among the members of the Church. Which is another way of demonstrating that such changes did not come from legitimate authority.
This is almost like the "imagine you didn't have breakfast yesterday" meme, but it's actually true. Why would the Pope *substantially* alter a given liturgical rite? The answer is, "he wouldn't."
Pope St. Pius V's standardization of the Roman missal did not *substantially* alter the sacrifice of the mass. Notwithstanding his right to do so as the sovereign, why would he do otherwise?
Imagine the Greek Patriarch for example moving the Proskomedia and making it a public prayer with involvement of the people? (I've actually seen this suggestion made recently, but that's another issue). Or suppressing the Epiklesis? You can't, right? It's impossible.
That being said, the Holy See did require revisions be made to the Greek liturgical books to remove errors and heresies upon their return to unity with the Church at various times following Photius's and Caerularius's schisms. And they were accepted by the Uniates at those times.
Dear M. Wright.
Please allow a few questions to better understand your thinking : I am wondering how could anyone be a true Shepherd of the Church without actually taking care of the flock of Christ, that is of those who have kept the true Faith and do not adhere to the errors of Vatican II. (?)
In other words, if we were to posit the question a bit differently : do you believe that traditional Catholics are the flock of Christ, or are those who adhere to the Vatican II institution the flock of Christ? Or both?
If you believe that those who are labeled today the «traditional Catholics» are the true flock of Christ, in the theory of the «Bishop(s) in the wood» (this being said with all respect for the theory) we would then have true Shepherds who do not actually govern the flock of Christ on the one hand, and we would have on the other hand the flock of Christ being actually (de facto) governed by people who are not the true Shepherds of the Church.
I am not sure what your thinking is but it seems to me that:
- either those adhering to Vatican II are members of the flock of Christ and therefore, since we have a different Faith, different sacramental forms and different «leaders» and are therefore two different institutions, we are not then the Church of Christ, but a sect;
- or those refusing Vatican II are the members of the flock of Christ and therefore those who govern them de facto are necessarily the Shepherds of the Church.
I would love to hear what you have to say not only regarding the Shepherds, but also regarding the flock. Are you saying that traditional Catholics are not the flock fo Christ, or that they are, or that both those adhering to the Vatican II religion/Church and those refusing it are the flock of Christ? And, if traditional Catholics are the flock of Christ, how would this be compatible with them being governed by non-Shepherds, while the true Shepherds do not actually govern them...?
Dear Mgr Roy,
Thank you for your reply. I shall try to answer your questions as best I can.
“I am wondering how could anyone be a true Shepherd of the Church without actually taking care of the flock of Christ, that is of those who have kept the true Faith and do not adhere to the errors of Vatican II. (?)
“In other words, if we were to posit the question a bit differently : do you believe that traditional Catholics are the flock of Christ, or are those who adhere to the Vatican II institution the flock of Christ? Or both?”
I think that Catholics are the flock of Christ; their status as Catholics is determined by the criteria mentioned by Pope Pius XII; their membership is compatible with a degree of error in good faith about what they should profess, and not completely destroyed by verbal adherence to Vatican II in good faith; and that thus there are Catholics are found both inside and outside what you call the Vatican II institution.
Further, it is possible for members of the flock of Christ to be deprived of legitimate shepherds; certainly on a diocese by diocese scale, but I think it is possible for this to be so even on a much bigger scale especially at the end of the world (whether this is the end or not, I do not know).
“If you believe that those who are labeled today the «traditional Catholics» are the true flock of Christ, in the theory of the «Bishop(s) in the wood» (this being said with all respect for the theory) we would then have true Shepherds who do not actually govern the flock of Christ on the one hand, and we would have on the other hand the flock of Christ being actually (de facto) governed by people who are not the true Shepherds of the Church.”
If there are indeed surviving residential bishops governing their flocks, their flocks are indeed part of the flock of Christ. We, however, are deprived of those true and legitimate shepherds. What we have in their place is, in my view, an entirely justified situation of certain men being set aside to receive holy orders to “lead” us, but in a de facto, provisional and conditional way – again, justified by the circumstances. I hope you understand that there is no disrespect intended towards you or any clergy there. I have discussed this matter here: https://www.wmreview.org/p/leo-xiii-duties-of-laymen
“I am not sure what your thinking is but it seems to me that:
- either those adhering to Vatican II are members of the flock of Christ and therefore, since we have a different Faith, different sacramental forms and different «leaders» and are therefore two different institutions, we are not then the Church of Christ, but a sect”
This does not seem to follow. I have argued in Zero Marks, the “Conciliar/Synodal Church” is not the Church, but also not a separate sect; it is a social reality made up of Catholics and non-Catholics, rather like various aggregations or even societies of which we are aware (e.g., the USA). There remain in the C/S milieu a number of Catholics (perhaps many) who are accidentally divided from us and, yes, professing errors and so on, and mistaken about the legitimacy of their leaders, but they remain united to us, in a way comparable to the Great Western Schism (though all analogies limp). See here: https://www.wmreview.org/p/rupture-journet
“- or those refusing Vatican II are the members of the flock of Christ and therefore those who govern them de facto are necessarily the Shepherds of the Church.”
I don’t think that the legitimacy (in a legal sense of being legitimate shepherds, as opposed to the justification of what the clergy do) follows from this at all.
“I would love to hear what you have to say not only regarding the Shepherds, but also regarding the flock. Are you saying that traditional Catholics are not the flock fo Christ, or that they are, or that both those adhering to the Vatican II religion/Church and those refusing it are the flock of Christ? And, if traditional Catholics are the flock of Christ, how would this be compatible with them being governed by non-Shepherds, while the true Shepherds do not actually govern them...?”
I think I’ve answered this. I also will add that I don’t think, until recently, most Catholics saw themselves as being governed by traditionalist bishops, in the sense of them being the legitimate authorities; and that even if they did, mistakes about such matters are inevitable in our time and of no great problem for an explanation (even if they lead to deleterious consequences in practice).
Moving to your next message:
If you were to say that the flock of Christ is both in the Novus Ordo (in those still holding the Faith) and in Tradition:
- what advice should be given to this part of the flock that is still in the Novus Ordo: leave the Novus Ordo and join Tradition, thus exposing themselves not to be governed by the true Shepherds of the Church - or remain in the Novus Ordo, thus exposing their Faith to danger?
In probably 99% of cases, they are already not goverened by true shepherds, but by illegitimate usurpers and intruders. So yes, I would advise them to leave the Novus Ordo and to seek out a place – as they probably have already been trying to do – where they can practice the religion of their grandparents in its integrity. Obviously there is no one place I would point them, because the nature of the situation is massive obscurity.
We both think it is important that the true status of traditionalist bishops be understood, although what this is is debated. I do largely agree with the views expressed by the RCI and the SSPX, namely that they are not our legitimate superiors, and so are (in theory, even if not in practice) limited in what they can do. I suppose that, if I am right, there is a risk in being governed by those who do believe that they are the legitimate authorities, as this could lead to the formation of a sect. But in the absence of a Roman Pontiff, danger is everywhere.
- what advice should be given to this part of the flock that is within Tradition : leave Tradition and join the Novus Ordo, thus exposing their Faith to danger - or remain in Tradition, thus exposing themselves to be governed by those who are not the true Shepherds of the Church?
Definitely not join the Novus Ordo. My advice would be to be aware of the situation, to be careful, cautious, and prudent. Deal with priests whose formation seems, as far as you can tell, to be good; trust their advice in the confessional and about the catechism; do not make them into your pope or gurus, such that their opinions on the crisis come to be treated as obligatory or infallible.
Is the situation such that one has today to choose to be either in the Faith and separated from the true Shepherds on the one hand or away from the Faith but submitted to the True Shepherds of the Church on the other hand?
No. Because the Novus Ordo bishops are, by and large, as far as we can tell, either clearly illegitimate or AT BEST doubtful cases.
And if neither the Novus Ordo Bishops nor traditional Catholic Bishops are the true Shepherds of the Church, shouldn't the Faithful leave both the Novus Ordo Bishops and traditional Catholic Bishops and become home aloners until the true Shepherds can be identified?
No, this doesn’t follow. I think the traditionalist clergy are justified in what they do; and even if I was wrong about that, the laity would be justified in approaching them for the sacraments etc.
Respectfully trying to find a way that makes sense... Most of your readers, I believe, want to be Catholic. For this, they need not only to keep the Faith, participate to the sacraments of the Church but also to be governed by the lawful Shepherds of the Church. Is it the case that you cannot hold the three together today? Shouldn't this question of who are the legitimate Shepherds of the Church be investigated equally with the question of where is the true Faith before deciding to attend a chapel/church today as always?
Some of this is answered above. But as to the middle point (“Most of your readers, I believe, want to be Catholic. For this, they need not only to keep the Faith, participate to the sacraments of the Church but also to be governed by the lawful Shepherds of the Church. Is it the case that you cannot hold the three together today?”), the nature of the crisis today is that we are deprived of access to those legitimate authorities. We are, thank God, not deprived of clergy able to “lead” us in a de facto, conditional way, and provide the sacraments. If, as in one the articles linked above, a large number of soldiers were cut off from their officers, no one would object to an arrangement in which some of them acted in a way comparable to officers, for the sake of the common good, so long as this arrangement did not become confused such that these men started acted like Colonels or, God forbid, Kings.
I have recently been accused by Fr Lavery of evasiveness or refusal to reply, simply because I did not wish to engage with him. I hope the fulness of my reply here, and in the article below which we are commenting, shows that this is far from the case.
Dear M. Wright,
Thank you for your kind reply. I will consider it carefully and come back to you if I think it is useful. I agree with multiple things you said and have my doubts on some others. But this message is mostly to acknowledge that I have seen and read your reply, although the day has been busy...
Thank you for your generous efforts. Your good will is not something I doubt of, nor the usual seriousness of your research.
Sean, what of we Uniates? The overwhelming majority of our clergy and episcopacy hold valid orders, but on a surficial reading, that makes them no different than the Eastern schismatics. That being said, our churches were all established in or returned to union with the Catholic church under true reigning popes. Further, our constitution as sui juris churches subject only to the Holy See seems to me to put our clergy in a unique position vis a vis jurisdiction.
I agree that this line of inquiry is interesting.
Perhaps it is in the Eastern Catholic (i.e. Uniate) churches that most or all of the Successors of the Apostles are to be found today, for they have valid orders, and in some cases their bishops do not even de iure require explicit appointment by the Pope.
Also, they often do act as shepherds, unlike the majority of Latin Novus Ordo bishops.
For an Eastern Catholic layman, unless his pastor or bishop publicly confesses heresy, there seems to be no essential obstacle to simply remaining in his parish (but on guard against modernist errors, of course).
And also, I would have another question:
If you were to say that the flock of Christ is both in the Novus Ordo (in those still holding the Faith) and in Tradition:
- what advice should be given to this part of the flock that is still in the Novus Ordo: leave the Novus Ordo and join Tradition, thus exposing themselves not to be governed by the true Shepherds of the Church - or remain in the Novus Ordo, thus exposing their Faith to danger?
- what advice should be given to this part of the flock that is within Tradition : leave Tradition and join the Novus Ordo, thus exposing their Faith to danger - or remain in Tradition, thus exposing themselves to be governed by those who are not the true Shepherds of the Church?
Is the situation such that one has today to choose to be either in the Faith and separated from the true Shepherds on the one hand or away from the Faith but submitted to the True Shepherds of the Church on the other hand?
And if neither the Novus Ordo Bishops nor traditional Catholic Bishops are the true Shepherds of the Church, shouldn't the Faithful leave both the Novus Ordo Bishops and traditional Catholic Bishops and become home aloners until the true Shepherds can be identified?
Respectfully trying to find a way that makes sense... Most of your readers, I believe, want to be Catholic. For this, they need not only to keep the Faith, participate to the sacraments of the Church but also to be governed by the lawful Shepherds of the Church. Is it the case that you cannot hold the three together today? Shouldn't this question of who are the legitimate Shepherds of the Church be investigated equally with the question of where is the true Faith before deciding to attend a chapel/church today as always?
Hello Mgr., I just wanted to thank you for your efforts and excellent exposition of these important questions regarding the crisis.
Years ago I stumbled upon a book titled "Sede Vacante!" written by a certain Griff Ruby, who I found did the best and most comprehensive study and application of traditional Ecclesiology to today's crisis I have ever found to date, at least in the English language, and many of the conclusions he reached in his work are in essence the idea of the traditional clergy and hierarchy being the true hierarchy of the Church, and consequently, the right of the traditional clergy to bring an end to this period of Sede vacante. I know nothing else about who Griff Ruby is or what kind of person he is, but just based off that study of his I have a great admiration for him despite the disregard given to him from the few people I've met who do know him on account of his conclusions drawn.
I would definitely recommend this study if you are not already familiar with it as I find the scholarly work done in aggregating as much English language ecclesiology as possible is excellent.
You are the first traditional Bishop to my knowledge to tackle these questions of importance in so graceful and professional a manner, and give these questions and points the exposure they need and deserve, for which I am very much grateful. I pray that you may continue to do God's work in helping the Church drive forward the discussion of Ecclesiology and its proper application to today's crisis, as I know that a proper study and use of what we have been gifted by the theologians of the Church in times past will surely provide us the answers we need, given time and God's grace and good pleasure.
May God bless you Neyoriquans. I have M. Ruby's books and was pleased to be able to meet him at the last Fatima Conference in Spokane, WA. United in prayers!
There is no opposition between submitting to your lawful superiors and remaining in the True Faith. If your parish priest is a public heretic, then you have no parish priest, if your bishop is a public heretic, then you have no bishop, and in such a case you don't have to submit to any man (since there is no pope either). Traditionalist priests and bishops have no authority over the faithful (for no one has given it to them), so even if they were to ask for your submission, you are not obligated to give it (in fact, I would argue you are obligated to refuse it rather than to recognize as a pastor he who has not been established as one by the lawful Authority).
Also, if your parish priest or your bishop is not using the approved and received rites of the Church (which means either the TLM or Eastern Catholic rites), then even if he is not a public heretic but merely in error, in most cases it is morally impossible for you to be led by him, for we are bound to avoid the non-Catholic rites that he uses for the sacraments. In such a case, it would be prudent to avoid his teachings altogether, because they would most probably be tainted by Novus Ordo errors.
But in any case, you must always remain in the True Faith. We are most of us now but sheep without a shepherd, yet the Faith is what sustains us, along with the traditional sacraments that we can receive from any validly ordained priest who is a Catholic. That is our right, and it is our duty as well, to nourish our souls. If you have such a TLM or an Eastern Catholic Liturgy nearby, to stay home alone would be to expose your soul to a very real danger of being lost, which you must not do.
P.S. Griff Ruby's theory that the Traditionalist bishops are the true hierarchy of the Church is dangerous: first, because no lawful Authority bestowed to them the power to rule in the Church, or to teach, which means that they can't be the Successors of the Apostles (who must have the threefold power of the Apostles to teach, rule and sanctify - they would only have the last one), and second, because it would mean that the Church is at this moment no longer Apostolic, since there would be no Successors of the Apostles. The argument that one day there would again be Successors doesn't fly, since all it would mean is that the Church would one day again be Apostolic, meaning that now it is not - this we know to be impossible because the four notes (incl. Apostolicity) will always identify the True Church, and any society which does not possess all four is not the Church, and also because the First Vatican Council infallibly teaches that there will be shepherds and teachers in the Church until the end of time.
What if, like Vatican II, Vatican I was wong on this?
That question does not exist for a Catholic, because of the infallibility of the Extraordinary Magisterium.
Instead of trying to make the Church's doctrine conform to your interpretation of the Crisis, make your interpretation of the Crisis conform to the Church's doctrine.
The Second Vatican Council, if it was ever legally convoked in the first place (i.e. if John XXIII was a true pope), did not last long and promulgated from little to nothing at all, depending on whether Montini was a false pope from the very beginning or if he lost his office after his election. The Supreme Authority of the Church will have to give a pronouncement on that, but right now it is sufficient to know that the documents of Vatican II that contain errors contrary to the Faith were not promulgated by the Roman Pontiff (and thus were not promulgated at all), because of the infallibility of ecumenical councils. How do we know that? Because Our Mother the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church teaches it to us, and God has revealed it to Her.
The CMRI's Fr Lavery's presented a careful and measured presentation on this subject using only orthodox sources and reaching no rushed or heretical conclusion having started from an orthodox 'block'. He says plainly where the church is not - in the V2 abomination - and therefore reasonably points to the promised succession as located in the valid, faithful traditional bishops. The Cassiciacum attempt characteries the body of the Church as the heretical foul husk of the Novus Ordo while seemingly the soul of the Church becomes some disembodied 'ghost' haunting traditionalists with out any means to take up residency - it is creepy Archbishop Thuc was given faculties to consecrate bishops by Pius XII without seeking consultation given Thuc's being situated in a hostile country with few if any means of communicating with His Holiness. Abp Thuc continued this papal mandate after the V2 revolution operating on a tacit mandate to continue Christ's Church for the salvation of souls. The tacit 'go forth' with all its attendant authority can only be found in the Faith. There is no 'go forth' belonging to the residential Novus Ordo and how could there be such hidden under a bushel with some unknown and unheard of bishop?
I take the opportunity, after reading this article which only brings questions and uncertainty (as if the Church wouldn’t be a safe institution to follow) to recommend this article, which brings certainties on the subject: https://ilustraciondivina.wordpress.com/2020/09/12/reflexiones-sobre-la-autoridad-de-los-obispos-tradicionales/.
It is in spanish, but you can use the translator
Sean,
thank you for this article which does bring considerable light (contra the critics) to a very difficult subject; I also agree with your position, that there has to be actual successors to the Apostles present in the Church until the end of time. I believe that both Conclavism and "Home Alone-ism" are false solutions to this present crisis.
The first, because the past Conclaves of Sede bishops have elected "Popes" with no authority, and the latter, because it deprives the faithful of the means to nourish their spiritual lives and save their souls; in other words a tradi "operation suicide".
Thank you also for the links to the related articles; I might have read them before, but they are also very helpful.
Thank you Michael!
Catholics should know that valid sacraments don't necessarily confer sanctifying grace, e.g. in the Orthodox churches.
A new substack by "Louis Montfort" seeks to show that demonstrable Jurisdiction & Mission are needed for valid & efficacious sacraments. In one of "Louis Montfort's" replies, he says: "...the Church has never taught that necessity or uncertainty can generate apostolic mission. Canonical provisions address acts under doubt—they do not establish offices or supply the authority to constitute hierarchy.
"So the question remains: if mission must come from the Roman Pontiff, where is that transmission publicly demonstrable today?"
His article today: louismontfort.substack.com/p/supplied-jurisdiction-without-a-pope
There is no need to establish offices, though as an act of jurisdiction that also may be supplied by the Church or by Christ. If a false pope is believed to be a true pope by a great part of the faithful, there is common error, and thus his acts of appointing bishops to sees are valid due to supplied jurisdiction (if that appointee is a Catholic, of course). Those sees were established by true popes long ago, there is no new office being established, there is just the act of filling a vacant see. This was done without the pope during the long interregnum in the 13th century, and for most of the first millennium as well, when the local clergy elected their bishops after the see became vacant and the popes usually did not interfere.
Peregrinus—You’re burying a distinction the Church has always guarded.
Supplied jurisdiction addresses specific acts in cases of common error or doubt—it does not validate a false source or extend to the creation or transmission of office itself.
If a “false pope” could supply jurisdiction simply by being widely believed, then jurisdiction would no longer be tied to truth or lawful mission—it would be reducible to perception. That contradicts the Church’s own principle:
“Jurisdiction… is conferred only through the Roman Pontiff” (Pius XII).
Common error can supply for acts where jurisdiction already exists in principle. It does not turn an invalid or unproven authority into a real one, nor does it justify a chain of appointments flowing from it.
As for historical elections: local clergy electing bishops was never independent of the Church’s juridical order—it operated within it, with recognition, confirmation, and ultimately subordination to Rome. It wasn’t a system where authority arose from below when the head was absent—it presupposed the head.
So the same question remains:
who today can demonstrate that their jurisdiction actually flows from the Roman Pontiff—not from assumption, not from common opinion, but from lawful mission?
Until that’s shown, appealing to “supplied jurisdiction” doesn’t resolve the problem—it assumes what it needs to prove.
Have you read the Wilmers quote in this article? Because you are arguing against what he teaches in the second paragraph.
It is not the false pope who supplies jurisdiction (how could he supply something he doesn't possess?), but either the Church, or Christ Himself (in cases where the Church is not able to supply).
Local clergy electing their bishop in the first millennium was very much a case of autonomy, just like the Eastern Catholic churches have even now. If Rome did not interfere by objecting to a bishop elect, then it proceeded entirely on its own, with the assumption of an implicit authorization. And as you can see from the long interregnum from the 13th century, it functioned even when there was no Roman Pontiff. How do you square that with your question?
It's not that authority came from below, just like it doesn't come from below in the election of the Roman Pontiff, or in the election of a head of an Eastern Catholic sui juris church. It's just the electors designating a person to whom God will grant ordinary jurisdiction - through the Roman Pontiff, but not always explicitly, and, apparently, as the history and practice of the Church shows, even when there is no living Roman Pontiff at that moment.
Btw, the same principle is true even in the secular realm, e.g. in elective monarchies (such as the HRE) the authority of the king or emperor doesn't come from below, the electors simply designate the person to whom God will grant the authority. And the same applies to republics as well.
You’re correct, sir.
I read the WM Review piece, and it’s clear the author is trying to grapple seriously with the present confusion. There’s an effort to hold together the Church’s indefectibility while acknowledging the visible breakdown, and that’s not nothing.
Where I would press a bit further is this: describing the situation as complex or difficult doesn’t resolve the underlying question. The Church has always taught that authority, to act in her name, must be traceable and public in its source. If that cannot be shown, then we’re not just dealing with murky circumstances, but with something lacking a necessary foundation.
I do think the article recognizes the tension, and that’s to its credit. But the next step is to follow that tension to its conclusion, even if it leads somewhere uncomfortable.
As always I appreciate your thoughtful and measured prudence. I believe we will only know the answer to many of these questions, and this crisis in general, upon its resolution. Articles such as yours help guide us in what not to adhere to even though they can not answer what is theologically certain or conclusive to non-magisterial judgment. And in the meantime, "...keeping the faith, raising our children, evangelising, and in the case of the clergy teaching, administering the sacraments, and so on..." to the best of our ability in a time of invincible ignorance, including praying the Rosary as one of the two last means mentioned at Fatima, is the best advice to adhere to Catholicism free of the heresy of Modernism.
Mr. Wright,
Your article is very valuable but I don't see why are now uncertain that the Church requires the existence of bishops with ordinary jurisdiction at all times.
First of all, we know that to be a Successor of the Apostles one must have the threefold power of the Apostles to teach, rule and sanctify. Only bishops who possess ordinary jurisdiction have all three. Thus, only they are truly the Successors of the Apostles.
Second, we know that there will be shepherds and teachers (those who have the power to rule and to teach) in the Church until the end of time, since this is what the First Vatican Council infallibly teaches. Thus, we know that they exist now as well, since we are not yet at the end of time (the Antichrist has not revealed himself, and that 3.5 year sequence of events that follows his appearance has not started).
Third, we know that the True Church will always be identified by the four notes (which includes Apostolicity), and that any society which does not possess all four is not the Church. Thus, even today, just like always, the Catholic Church possesses all four notes, incl. Apostolicity, which signifies an uninterrupted both material and formal Apostolic Succession.
Applying all of that, if at this time there are no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, then there are no teachers and shepherds (which we know to be impossible because of Vatican I), and there are no Successors of the Apostles, which would mean that that the Church is at this moment no longer Apostolic and that the Apostolic Succession has been broken.
The argument that the Church maintains the Succession in potentia and that one day there would again be Successors of the Apostles doesn't fly, since all it would mean is that the Church would one day again be Apostolic, meaning that now it is not, which would mean that it has for a time lost the note of Apostolicity, and thus it is not the True Church.
It is thus quite certain in faith that there are necessarily today (as always) bishops who possess ordinary jurisdiction in the Church. If it seems hard to accept that there are such among the Latin Novus Ordo bishops (though it may be possible, and I know at least one who is well disposed, and who does not seem to be a public heretic), then it is much easier to accept that they are to be found at least among the Eastern Catholic bishops, who possess valid orders and feed their flocks with the traditional rites of the sacraments. And even if every one of those bishops were to hold many errors, we cannot in justice simply assume that for every single one of them those errors would rise to the level of public heresy and loss of office.
Which theologians have you been reading that have lowered your degree of certainty on this matter, namely, the necessity of the presence of apostolic successors in the world and that no interruption of this presence can happen? In your previous articles, the theologians quoted all supported your level of certainty on this Catholic teaching. I've yet to read any theologian at all giving a minority position on this that such is possible.
Hi Pacelli. Like I said, it's still my default position. But some of the arguments around moral continuity and what Billot and others said about false or doubtful claimants in this context have given me some pause, as have some things about the effect of the force of law. I set some of it out in a footnote of Zero Marks.
Mr. Wright,
I think many of the readers would be grateful (I certainly would) if you could please expound on that, and also point out the specific footnote to which you refer.
Then we could appreciate the complexities better, and perhaps some of us can help in some of the things that are giving you pause.
There was an analysis of Fr. Gabriel Lavery's assertions in regards to the apostolic succession on this thread: https://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/2784/gabriel-lavery-cmri-apostolic-succession
On page 3, an AI translation of the entire section was provided by a forum member, so as to give the full statement and context of what Lainez was explaining. I think reading that thread may assist readers in better understanding these issues.