What was meant to be a “renewal process” of “listening and discernment” has, instead, exposed the dangers of subordinating episcopal authority to the will of a transient majority.
One morning, on the Feast of the Nativity, the Bishop of a great city gave a rousing sermon in which he claimed that Mary was NOT the "Mother of God". A layman stood up, yelled "HERESY! We have no bishop!". He proceeded to walk out. Many laity followed. The bishop held on to his seat, and acted as bishops do. However, the Roman Pontiff, because there there actually WAS a Roman Pontiff at the time, confirmed the laity 's statement: by his public heresy, said bishop has tacitly resigned his office, having ceased to be Catholic. As a result, since that Nativity morning, Nestorius had defected from the Catholic Church, and the See of Constantinople had been vacant. Thus all acts of Nestorius were null and void.
That is TRUE "synodality", but I am sure the synodal/conciliar crowd doesn't want that practiced...like every other "ancient" practice they dredged up from the dustbin of history, they have to mutilate it because it is laced with True Faith.
Considering we have revolutionaries at the highest levels of the Vatican, I suspect this was all a deliberate scheme to get the preferred result. If you invite an unqualified but "diverse" mob to opine on a subject as consequential as the salvation of souls, why would you expect anything but disordered results? I don't think there are any adults left in the room, but the whole synodal process ought to be shut down.
The majority of people who self identify as Catholics are, in fact, not Catholic. This includes almost the entire hierarchy as well as the general clergy and laity. Hell is real and it is eternal. Anyone who is faithful to Christ our King must repudiate the Ape Church (Neo Church, Vatican II Church, Conciliar Church, etc.). It damns souls. The One True Church saves souls. It’s your choice. If you end up spending eternity in Hell it’s your own fault. So, what do you choose?
It doesn’t include the entire hierarchy as some might suggest as the divine constitution of the Church requires that there must always be a college of Bishops and this only includes those with ordinary jurisdiction.
Therefore there must be at least two bishops with ordinary jurisdiction (either over a diocese or a religious order) who meet this criterion. The Eastern Rites in many places still have valid orders so it is likely that we will find these men there. As to the state of their souls, they need to supernatural virtue of faith but may be very lacking in hope and charity.
The necessity of "ordinary jurisdiction" is not established definitively as a part of the visibility of the Church. If the conciliar church is an apostate sect, and it's leaders are thus not true popes, than there hasn't been anyone with ordinary jurisdiction, even in the Eastern Rites, since the death of Pius XII. Further, part of the characteristics of the Church, as a perfect society, is that it always contains everything needed to perpetuate itself; it was assumed in the past that bishops who assumed jurisdiction over vacant sees in the midst of an extended interregnum were granted jurisdiction "by the Church", and that jurisdiction was recognized by the next Supreme Pontiff. Thus, we can say that it is possible that all that is needed is validly consecrated bishops, who can assume necessary jurisdiction when a true Pope is granted to us.
We must remember that the Great Western Schism was not foreseen as possible by the great theologians of the 12th and 13th Centuries, yet it happened. It was the opinion of many theologians prior to the Council that we cannot be too certain of what can and cannot happen, because God's ways are not our ways.
I’m afraid you’re mistaken. Apostolic succession must always be preserved within the Church and to be a successor to the apostles you have to have not only episcopal consecration but also ordinary jurisdiction. This is part of the divine constitution of the church which cannot be changed.
So I read the forums in their entirety, and I believe we are at an impasse. SOMETHING has to give. The Tradition of the Church is that obstinate refusal to believe in the entirety of the doctrines of the Church is heresy, and heretics, by the mere fact of their heresy, are deprived of any jurisdiction. Same with schismatics. This would mean the NO sect has absolutely no jurisdiction, and their popes are not popes. For this, we actually have Magisterial teachings, most notably papal references to the Nestorius' loss of office/jurisdiction when he started preaching heresy (not after an official declaration, but ipso facto). There can be no supposition on this, especially as it is supported by the 1917 CIC.
The Eastern Rites derive their jurisdiction from "papal" approval of the V2 claimants. If the V2 claimants aren't licit, and have no jurisdiction, then the Eastern claim is moot. They lack jurisdiction as well. The Orthodox, by their schism, lack jurisdiction entirely. If we use the definition that is repeated by theologians, then there is not a single bishop with ordinary jurisdiction, and thus Apostolic Succession ended with the death of the last bishop appointed by Pope Pius XII. This is impossible, because Christ promised otherwise.
There are only two possible solutions, as I see them (and I could be wrong). First, as Steven Speray points out, the definitions provided are theological opinions. Yes, you cited some Magisterial texts...but those don't define "Apostolic Succession" specifically, at least not to settle the issue. We know there is a Magisterium. There has to be. That is not the question. In this regard, Speray 's thesis (which he actually posits as his own, and derived from the "facts on the ground"), holds some weight.
The second possibility is based on historical precedent. Augustine did not drive his authority from papal mandate. He was elected bishop by the faithful of Hippo. His jurisdiction was from the Church. During extended vacancies, sees were filled by election, and approved AFTER the Perrine See had been filled. It was presumed that, due to the absence of the Supreme Pastor, the Church supplied the necessary jurisdiction to continue Apostolic Succession.
I don't presume to know the answer, but as the facts present themselves, I don't see an alternative.
There have been antiPopes in the past. The principle of common error allowed for the actions of such men to be supplied with jurisdiction by the Church when their acts are for the good of the Church.
This certainly includes the continuation of Apostolic Succession through the appointment of Catholics to offices with ordinary jurisdiction.
You can read about it on the forums. Ask the resource curator Pacelli for the link 🔗 as the search function isn’t helpful to me in finding it. He’s likely on a lenten break but will be back after Easter Sunday.
If you don’t want to join the forums ask in the shoutbox.
It’s my understanding that it is forbidden to prefix Catholic with anything else including traditional. We are just Catholics. Church membership requires the public profession of the faith handed down to us.
Those in the modernist sect who have knowingly rejected the infallible teachings of the Church at Vatican II are not Catholics and we shouldn’t pretend that they are. Their fruits are bad and their sect is failing like every other sect that has separated itself from the vine.
Interesting; I don't doubt that, but where exactly is it forbidden to put an adjective in front of the noun Catholic? How about Eastern or Western or Ukrainian Catholic? For many centuries, "traditional Catholic" would have been a redundant and therefore unnecessary term, but that is no longer true. It is helpful to know what sort of flavor of Catholic one is dealing with these days to protect oneself from "bad Catholics."
Benedict XV's first encyclical, Ad beatissimi Apostolorum. Section 24 reads:
“It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.”
We are to abstain from using prefixes because of the confusion that arises. There is only one Catholic and we need only point out that the modernists and liberals are not Catholic but enemies of the Church.
In reality what is it to us what goes on in that new sect which holds no authority over anyone but it's members. As Christ remained silent during His interrogation by the usurper Herod and gave him no credence at all, so what part do catholics have with these usurpers and their new, concilliar, synodal church other than to rescue family and loved ones from this modern-day Sodom and Gomarah. As St Paul also said, "Take yourself out from among them."
Thank you for the quote. I agree with your thesis in general, but it is a bit rich that a "post conciliar" pope essentially told us not to distinguish between traditional Catholics who adhere to ancient liturgies of the East and West and those who, for one reason or another, adhere to the Novus Ordo. BXVI's immediate predecessors applied a meat cleaver to Catholic worship and he introduced the dubious distinction of "ordinary and extraordinary" forms of the Mass which are actually completely different rites, and some argue different Catholic religions. Therefore one could reasonably assert his "directive" was a type of damage control to obscure the effects of the liturgical revolution inflicted upon the Church nearly six decades ago.
By all means we need to as a social body distinguish between modernists and Catholics. But we need to call a spade a spade. The religion of Vatican II is not Catholic and was dedicated to the service of the Communist UN by Paul VI himself.
The liturgy itself isn’t sufficient in determining whether someone is Catholic or not. There are plenty of Eastern Rite priests who have valid orders who are modernist in their beliefs, just as there are “traditional” priests who have become heretics and schismatics (in practice) though both undeclared in the absence of legitimate Church authorities.
Most excellent article and comments that put the nail on the head.
Now at last I understand why I get that feeling in the pit of my stomach that something is wrong when I see the laity in positions of authority and control over things ecclesiastical. Also, I know something is wrong at the parish level when the majority of the staff are women. (I digress!)
As a woman I’m very aware of women’s propensity to be bossy over the male sex and complaining about the men in their lives including their husbands and sons.
It doesn’t help that our American culture says that men are stupid and ineffectual in all states of life and affairs.
As part of the laity I’m going to stay in my lane where God wants me to be.
I want to add something more re my thoughts about the laity involved in the synodal process: another reason why I felt that pit-in-the-my-stomach was when the synod had lay and religious women involved. I knew there would be trouble ahead. I don’t think I need to say more…
Don’t forget nosey. Women are nosey. And they think things should be changed based on feelings. I think, if anything, society (and the Church, by and large) is run by “feels” instead of logic and Tradition. It’s killing us.
One morning, on the Feast of the Nativity, the Bishop of a great city gave a rousing sermon in which he claimed that Mary was NOT the "Mother of God". A layman stood up, yelled "HERESY! We have no bishop!". He proceeded to walk out. Many laity followed. The bishop held on to his seat, and acted as bishops do. However, the Roman Pontiff, because there there actually WAS a Roman Pontiff at the time, confirmed the laity 's statement: by his public heresy, said bishop has tacitly resigned his office, having ceased to be Catholic. As a result, since that Nativity morning, Nestorius had defected from the Catholic Church, and the See of Constantinople had been vacant. Thus all acts of Nestorius were null and void.
That is TRUE "synodality", but I am sure the synodal/conciliar crowd doesn't want that practiced...like every other "ancient" practice they dredged up from the dustbin of history, they have to mutilate it because it is laced with True Faith.
Considering we have revolutionaries at the highest levels of the Vatican, I suspect this was all a deliberate scheme to get the preferred result. If you invite an unqualified but "diverse" mob to opine on a subject as consequential as the salvation of souls, why would you expect anything but disordered results? I don't think there are any adults left in the room, but the whole synodal process ought to be shut down.
Vatican II was synodal. They haven’t shut that down yet.
The majority of people who self identify as Catholics are, in fact, not Catholic. This includes almost the entire hierarchy as well as the general clergy and laity. Hell is real and it is eternal. Anyone who is faithful to Christ our King must repudiate the Ape Church (Neo Church, Vatican II Church, Conciliar Church, etc.). It damns souls. The One True Church saves souls. It’s your choice. If you end up spending eternity in Hell it’s your own fault. So, what do you choose?
“As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”
It doesn’t include the entire hierarchy as some might suggest as the divine constitution of the Church requires that there must always be a college of Bishops and this only includes those with ordinary jurisdiction.
Therefore there must be at least two bishops with ordinary jurisdiction (either over a diocese or a religious order) who meet this criterion. The Eastern Rites in many places still have valid orders so it is likely that we will find these men there. As to the state of their souls, they need to supernatural virtue of faith but may be very lacking in hope and charity.
We must pray for these men.
The necessity of "ordinary jurisdiction" is not established definitively as a part of the visibility of the Church. If the conciliar church is an apostate sect, and it's leaders are thus not true popes, than there hasn't been anyone with ordinary jurisdiction, even in the Eastern Rites, since the death of Pius XII. Further, part of the characteristics of the Church, as a perfect society, is that it always contains everything needed to perpetuate itself; it was assumed in the past that bishops who assumed jurisdiction over vacant sees in the midst of an extended interregnum were granted jurisdiction "by the Church", and that jurisdiction was recognized by the next Supreme Pontiff. Thus, we can say that it is possible that all that is needed is validly consecrated bishops, who can assume necessary jurisdiction when a true Pope is granted to us.
We must remember that the Great Western Schism was not foreseen as possible by the great theologians of the 12th and 13th Centuries, yet it happened. It was the opinion of many theologians prior to the Council that we cannot be too certain of what can and cannot happen, because God's ways are not our ways.
I’m afraid you’re mistaken. Apostolic succession must always be preserved within the Church and to be a successor to the apostles you have to have not only episcopal consecration but also ordinary jurisdiction. This is part of the divine constitution of the church which cannot be changed.
http://wmreview.co.uk/2023/04/20/apostolicity-successors/
https://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/2362/new-heresy-denial-apostolic-succession
https://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/2371/heresy-changing-meaning-apostolic-successor
So I read the forums in their entirety, and I believe we are at an impasse. SOMETHING has to give. The Tradition of the Church is that obstinate refusal to believe in the entirety of the doctrines of the Church is heresy, and heretics, by the mere fact of their heresy, are deprived of any jurisdiction. Same with schismatics. This would mean the NO sect has absolutely no jurisdiction, and their popes are not popes. For this, we actually have Magisterial teachings, most notably papal references to the Nestorius' loss of office/jurisdiction when he started preaching heresy (not after an official declaration, but ipso facto). There can be no supposition on this, especially as it is supported by the 1917 CIC.
The Eastern Rites derive their jurisdiction from "papal" approval of the V2 claimants. If the V2 claimants aren't licit, and have no jurisdiction, then the Eastern claim is moot. They lack jurisdiction as well. The Orthodox, by their schism, lack jurisdiction entirely. If we use the definition that is repeated by theologians, then there is not a single bishop with ordinary jurisdiction, and thus Apostolic Succession ended with the death of the last bishop appointed by Pope Pius XII. This is impossible, because Christ promised otherwise.
There are only two possible solutions, as I see them (and I could be wrong). First, as Steven Speray points out, the definitions provided are theological opinions. Yes, you cited some Magisterial texts...but those don't define "Apostolic Succession" specifically, at least not to settle the issue. We know there is a Magisterium. There has to be. That is not the question. In this regard, Speray 's thesis (which he actually posits as his own, and derived from the "facts on the ground"), holds some weight.
The second possibility is based on historical precedent. Augustine did not drive his authority from papal mandate. He was elected bishop by the faithful of Hippo. His jurisdiction was from the Church. During extended vacancies, sees were filled by election, and approved AFTER the Perrine See had been filled. It was presumed that, due to the absence of the Supreme Pastor, the Church supplied the necessary jurisdiction to continue Apostolic Succession.
I don't presume to know the answer, but as the facts present themselves, I don't see an alternative.
There have been antiPopes in the past. The principle of common error allowed for the actions of such men to be supplied with jurisdiction by the Church when their acts are for the good of the Church.
This certainly includes the continuation of Apostolic Succession through the appointment of Catholics to offices with ordinary jurisdiction.
You can read about it on the forums. Ask the resource curator Pacelli for the link 🔗 as the search function isn’t helpful to me in finding it. He’s likely on a lenten break but will be back after Easter Sunday.
If you don’t want to join the forums ask in the shoutbox.
Thank you. I stand corrected.
It’s my understanding that it is forbidden to prefix Catholic with anything else including traditional. We are just Catholics. Church membership requires the public profession of the faith handed down to us.
Those in the modernist sect who have knowingly rejected the infallible teachings of the Church at Vatican II are not Catholics and we shouldn’t pretend that they are. Their fruits are bad and their sect is failing like every other sect that has separated itself from the vine.
Interesting; I don't doubt that, but where exactly is it forbidden to put an adjective in front of the noun Catholic? How about Eastern or Western or Ukrainian Catholic? For many centuries, "traditional Catholic" would have been a redundant and therefore unnecessary term, but that is no longer true. It is helpful to know what sort of flavor of Catholic one is dealing with these days to protect oneself from "bad Catholics."
Benedict XV's first encyclical, Ad beatissimi Apostolorum. Section 24 reads:
“It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.”
www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xv/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xv_enc_01111914_ad-beatissimi-apostolorum.html
We are to abstain from using prefixes because of the confusion that arises. There is only one Catholic and we need only point out that the modernists and liberals are not Catholic but enemies of the Church.
In reality what is it to us what goes on in that new sect which holds no authority over anyone but it's members. As Christ remained silent during His interrogation by the usurper Herod and gave him no credence at all, so what part do catholics have with these usurpers and their new, concilliar, synodal church other than to rescue family and loved ones from this modern-day Sodom and Gomarah. As St Paul also said, "Take yourself out from among them."
Thank you for the quote. I agree with your thesis in general, but it is a bit rich that a "post conciliar" pope essentially told us not to distinguish between traditional Catholics who adhere to ancient liturgies of the East and West and those who, for one reason or another, adhere to the Novus Ordo. BXVI's immediate predecessors applied a meat cleaver to Catholic worship and he introduced the dubious distinction of "ordinary and extraordinary" forms of the Mass which are actually completely different rites, and some argue different Catholic religions. Therefore one could reasonably assert his "directive" was a type of damage control to obscure the effects of the liturgical revolution inflicted upon the Church nearly six decades ago.
By all means we need to as a social body distinguish between modernists and Catholics. But we need to call a spade a spade. The religion of Vatican II is not Catholic and was dedicated to the service of the Communist UN by Paul VI himself.
The liturgy itself isn’t sufficient in determining whether someone is Catholic or not. There are plenty of Eastern Rite priests who have valid orders who are modernist in their beliefs, just as there are “traditional” priests who have become heretics and schismatics (in practice) though both undeclared in the absence of legitimate Church authorities.
Most excellent article and comments that put the nail on the head.
Now at last I understand why I get that feeling in the pit of my stomach that something is wrong when I see the laity in positions of authority and control over things ecclesiastical. Also, I know something is wrong at the parish level when the majority of the staff are women. (I digress!)
As a woman I’m very aware of women’s propensity to be bossy over the male sex and complaining about the men in their lives including their husbands and sons.
It doesn’t help that our American culture says that men are stupid and ineffectual in all states of life and affairs.
As part of the laity I’m going to stay in my lane where God wants me to be.
I want to add something more re my thoughts about the laity involved in the synodal process: another reason why I felt that pit-in-the-my-stomach was when the synod had lay and religious women involved. I knew there would be trouble ahead. I don’t think I need to say more…
As a woman, I wholeheartedly agree.
Don’t forget nosey. Women are nosey. And they think things should be changed based on feelings. I think, if anything, society (and the Church, by and large) is run by “feels” instead of logic and Tradition. It’s killing us.