Jurisdiction And Continuity (Titular Post)

Primary sources are from  How is the pope the source of jurisdiction? Mgr Fenton explains and The Apostolic Succession Objection Refuted. The premise behind this is based on  The Siri Thesis: Sede Vacante Or 'Sede Remota' ?

The two articles cited above are considered to be an aggregate of all of the necessary details regarding jurisdiction in the Church.

In The Apostolic Succession Objection Refuted it is noted that titular bishops have the same rights as bishops to whom a diocese is attached. Thus, they have the same right to participate in a General Council as any other bishop. There was some opposition to this participation in the past (noting their lack of particular jurisdiction) whereas the answer is, in part (quoted in extenso as necessary):

"The reason for the opposing sentence lies entirely in the claim that the right of suffrage, or voting in Councils, belongs to the power of jurisdiction; now, merely titular bishops are devoid of an effective and actual jurisdiction; therefore, they conclude that they lack the basis on which the right to vote rests, and that if they acquire this right when admitted to the Council by the Pope, this arises because the Supreme Pontiff then grants them jurisdiction over the whole Church, which forms the subject of the conciliar resolutions. However, this total lack of jurisdiction does not seem admissible, as it is almost impossible not to recognize that by means of the imposition of hands, or consecration, some jurisdiction is also received. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish in the bishop between the particular jurisdiction for the governance of some determined Church (which is certainly received from the Pope) and the general and universal jurisdiction (which the bishop acquires in the act and by virtue of his ordination, that is, when he enters to be a member of the episcopal body and consequently enters into the right to teach and govern the whole Church when he finds himself in union with all the other bishops and forms a single body with them and with the Supreme Pontiff). On this universal jurisdiction common to all bishops (because it arises from episcopal ordination) is based the right of suffrage (voting) in Councils; and in fact, even residential bishops do not vote in Councils by virtue of the jurisdiction they have over their particular churches, but as teachers or governors of the whole Church in general when they are all gathered in a body with the visible head of the Church itself. Therefore, even if the exercise of the right of governance over their respective churches remains suspended for titular bishops (because those churches have fallen into the hands of infidels or lack Christian subjects, or the Holy See reserves to itself the provision for the few Christians who might be there, through its Apostolic Vicars), it will always remain certain that they are not deprived of that general jurisdiction, attained through their ordination. Bolgeni, Cappellari (later Gregory XVI of holy memory), Philipps, and others argue thus. Furthermore, it does not seem right to completely ignore what a few serious writers observe regarding the particular jurisdiction of the titular bishops themselves, in relation to their respective churches: that in the case of these bishops, although they are prevented from going to govern those churches, there always remains a radical, habitual jurisdiction, as they say, in actu primo (in the first act/in principle), and that only per accidens (accidentally) and in actu secundo (in the second act/in execution) is its exercise suspended. And regarding this, one can also see the aforementioned apostolic letters of Benedict XIV to Cardinal delle Lanze, where it is shown that this habitual jurisdiction has something more effective and real than what is ordinarily believed. All the reasons cited so far concerning the right of titular bishops to attend the Council have been learnedly discussed, at least the most serious and solid ones, by the most eminent Cardinals, and they have therefore held that [titular bishops] must be considered included in the general call that His Holiness has made to the entire Catholic episcopate for the future Council."

- Giovan Domenico Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, Expensis H. Welter, vol. 49, col. 494–496 

 

So it is established that all bishops, regardless of whether they are attached to a diocese, participate in the universal Apostolic jurisdiction given by Christ through St. Peter.

For reasons of brevity (and also because it is not necessary), citations will be kept to a minimum; we know what the Catholic Faith is, and the Church, and all of the decrees which make up the Office of the Magisterium. The main point for our time is, so we think, not to know all of these things so much as to know that all of these things are what constitute the documents of the Church; especially as opposed to the false 'Magisterium' of the antipapacy and the false church which it has engendered.

This is why it is important to identify the starting point of the antipapacy, which is also the cut-off point, and which is the subject of The Siri Thesis: Sede Vacante Or 'Sede Remota' ? and The Faith Undermined (1958-1965).

 

There are a number of sedevacantist bishops in the world today, who, under the right conditions (properly consecrated), possess the Apostolic succession. However, it is argued, and rightly so, that none of them possess jurisdiction in the sense of governing a particular diocese under the authority of the Pope. But as we have seen, they possess the universal jurisdiction "which the bishop acquires in the act and by virtue of his ordination". This ought to be clear; that to be a bishop in fact it is not necessary to possess also ordinary jurisdiction.

It is also true that, because of this, they do not possess in fact the authority to teach and govern although, by right of the priestly ordination, they have the right to sanctify. 

 

"Jurisdiction means the power to teach and govern. — This power is conferred only by a legitimate authorization and, even though once received, can be lost again by being revoked".

- Msgr. G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, vol. II: Christ’s Church, The Newman Press, [1959], p. 152

The proposal described here is derived from the 'Sede Remota' premise. For now let us leave aside whether or not that is correct, because we cannot know this until some kind of confirmation (or not) arrives to inform us; what interests us is whether the logic holds true from this premise, and it ought to be judged by that standard and not by preconceived notions. [1]

 

At present, there is no consensus among sedevacantist bishops (or the rest of the faithful) as to what constitutes the cut-off point for the papacy. This is important, because without such a consensus, there cannot be a unity of faith. If some suspect Pius XII of not remaining faithful, then at least his 1955 reforms might be considered spurious; worse still, his 1950 definition of the Assumption might be considered invalid. If some consider Roncalli (John XXIII) to have been a true Pope but not Montini (Paul VI), then this presents other problems; some might consider Roncalli's earlier actions to be valid and this might include some parts of the bogus council which he called. This harms the unity of faith as well.

Therefore before continuing we deem the cut-off point to be from the death of Pius XII. That much at least is certain to many. But further then that, we deem the current situation to be described as 'Sede Remota': That the Papal Chair is not only empty but removed; and that there was a true Pope elected (Guiseppe Siri) but he did not reign, and that his papacy was prorogued (see Apoc. 12:5) because it was unfulfilled; and the papacy was 'taken out of the way' (2 Thess. 2:7) because the situation presented to Siri within the conclave was an impossible one. [2]

 

The second part is less sure than the first, but it is necessary to address the problem of jurisdiction. For if the papacy is truly 'taken out of the way' then there is no problem with jurisdiction, as it is not required at this time. What is required is to preserve what remains. To continue the Apostolic succession suffices for the hierarchy.

In The Faith Undermined (1958-1965) the progress of the dragon and the retreat of the Church was detailed. When the Council and its heresies was unleashed upon the world, beginning Dec. 8, 1965, as a spiritual flood (Apoc. 12:15-16), we think that all 'jurisdictional' operations had already ceased beforehand. When the antipapacy was first established. she fled "into the wilderness" (Apoc. 12:6) which means out of the city, Rome, and yet remaining in the dioceses; when she fled "into the desert" (Apoc. 12:14) around the time of the illicit council, she had also left the dioceses. [3]

The bishops, having recognized the false pope as pope, were not penalized for that fact, which they could not know, but nevertheless their jurisdiction ceased, as one cannot teach the Church without commission from the pope; or conversely, with a 'commission' from a false pope.

From that point, the Church ceased to teach and all jurisdiction was suspended due to the situation. This does not mean the Church defected, but had entered a mode of preservation.  Suspended does not mean ended; cut-off does not mean permanently. In particular since the 'man child' was "taken up to God, and to his throne" (Apoc. 12:5) we can be certain that the means of restoration are reserved. [4]

There is a further reason for the lack of jurisdiction: the aforementioned unity of faith. Not only is there (1) no pope to unify the faithful, but there is (2) no consensus as to when the interregnum properly began, and why. For these two reasons there is no canonical mission nor an agreement as to what precisely is the Faith to be preserved. By precisely we mean the definite cut-off point, so-called because it contains within this range (from St. Peter to Pius XII, or 33-1958 A.D.), the entire body of authentic Catholic teaching and decrees.

And it is more important to know what precisely is this range than to know precisely every detail within it. For when the range is defined then one can find the Faith and only the Faith within it, and without danger of being led astray or giving obedience to a false shepherd.

It follows that there also cannot be a canonical mission without a consensus as to the precise body of Magisterial decrees which informs that mission. [5]

There is another consideration: The 'material-formal' thesis also known as the Cassiciacum Thesis. This thesis holds that the hierarchy of Rome hold the offices 'materially' (or in potentiality) but not 'formally' (or actually, in every respect) until they become Catholic. So their office is impeded by their heresies but they hold it in potential. 

That solution holds that it is possible for the apostate hierarchy to convert to Catholicism and so re-constitute the Church. Without debating the merits of this idea in and of itself, we recall it here because its general idea has some application to the current problem of jurisdiction. For even if the Cassiciacum were true, the problem of their jurisdiction also remains while they allegedly hold their office materially, but not formally.

In a sense, this holds true for all sedevacantist bishops today. They hold their office with universal but not particular jurisdiction, holding, as it were, the Apostolic succession materially, or in trust, but not formally, with full power to teach and to govern. Until this is recovered with the papacy, no one has any authority in the Church, no, not even the true priests or the bishops, as there is no formal commission, no jurisdiction, and no consensus, and no unity of faith. [6]

This is not to impugn the good name of the sedevacantist priests and bishops. Others have accused them of improperly taking on the canonical mission, as they have no particular jurisdiction. We fail to see this as a problem, since, as we have indicated, none is required during the suspension of the operations of jurisdiction and the temporary removal of the papacy. Moreover if the scattered priests and bishops (not a hierarchy in the full sense of the word) wish to act in the name of the Church and also their followers to act in the name of the Church by considering them as their proper superiors then we do not see this as a problem either. Whether or not the papacy is merely in an interregnum or actually 'taken out of the way' does not prevent (morally or by canon law) the bishops from acting as the bishops should or the faithful from acting as the faithful should.

The entire scattered flock is in the same boat as it were. As there is no firm consensus, at the least those who claim the name Catholic Christian should reject Vatican '2' in its entirety. The sedevacantist bishops and priests do this (for the most part). But none can, with authority, teach this or that concerning the Faith, but can only say which is of Tradition, and which is not; and in following the more or less general consensus to repudiate Vatican '2' this amounts to passing on the Faith unaltered which is a form of teaching but which is nonetheless not forbidden by the lack of jurisdiction, as it is part of the preservation of the Faith.

 

Closer to the general consensus is to reject everything from the source and beginning of the Apostasy - and of course it must be so, but we are again faced with the problem of where precisely that cut-off lies. If some do not regulate their Faith along that line and that point, it may be called a schism, not from the unity of the Faith, but from the potential of finding that unity. But it is not a schism in fact because there is no firm unity as yet from which one may separate. In this way it is almost circular.

 

So as the Apostolic succession is continued and yet held 'in trust', as it were, by sedevacantist bishops, so also is the papacy held 'in trust', as it seems, at the throne in Heaven (Apoc. 12:5) until it is time to be returned. From the time it was 'taken out of the way' until Sr. Lucia's Third Secret Vision (which is Apoc. Ch. 14) it appears still to be held in Heaven: The 'bishop dressed in white' seen by Sr. Lucia and her two cousins was understood to be 'the Holy Father' but he seems to be the papal designate but not the pope in actuality (if he can be 'the Holy Father' but not the pope). It seems that the full restoration of the papacy will wait until the First Resurrection (Apoc. 20).

The signing of the elect (Apoc. 7) might possibly be an action of the papacy as the angel with someone (who is not specified) signs the elect. These elect, however, are also 'First Resurrection' designate, and not in actuality, as they have not yet fulfilled their end - which is also a beginning - and we think the papacy with the Church is not fully restored until the First Resurrection after the defeat of the antichrist.

 

Finally, we think that the papacy cannot be restored to the world in full until the defeat of the antichrist and the removal of the antipapacy because they cannot exist at the same time in the world. When the antichrist precursor appeared, this happened only because the papacy was 'taken out of the way'; and the papacy had to be removed for the antichrist and his precursors to appear. [7] The reason for this is discussed elsewhere; but it is simply because the papacy restrained the coming of the antichrist until it was time. It follows then, that as there was the Christ, there was inevitably to be an antichrist at some point; but again, it was necessary to restrain that event until other things were ready.

 

Footnotes

1.  Nothing is proven or disproven at this point. It is not sufficient to say 'this is not the official position of the Church and therefore it is wrong' because there is no official Church authority present at this time to make such a judgement; and 'merely anyone' (which is, moreover, everyone at this point) does not have that authority either.

It should be added that, according to the pre-1958 standard, the current situation can hardly conceivably be worse. There is nothing in this proposal, then, that can add to it. It is merely a conclusion drawn from certain established premises.

2.  Various explanations have been given over the years, but we think the answer is a conglomerate of indicators. The infiltrators which are described by the 'tail' of the dragon (Apoc. 12:4) correspond with the 'false apostles' spoken of by Dr. Bella Dodd to the House Un-American Activities Committee in the 1950's; we know a mason was almost elected in 1903 (Rampolla, but for Msgr. Jouin and Emperor Franz Joseph) so it is possible; the mix-up in smoke signals on Oct. 26, 1958 which indicate someone was elected but no one appeared (Siri); the subsequent suppression of the Third Secret of Fatima by Roncalli in 1960, and more (see The Faith Undermined (1958-1965)). But specifically what happened within the conclave is open to interpretation. We think that an impossible situation was presented, and that the pope-elect (whom we will say is Siri) could not appear as pope; but that, as a consequence, the papacy was 'taken out of the way' so that the whole Church would not all at once be in schism, which would have happened if the requirement for obedience to the Pope were still present.

 

Gary Guiffre thought that the plan of the 'mystery of iniquity' was to have a legitimately elected pope, then for him to be sidelined while the next one is elected who then must be illegitimate. We think this is true on one level. There could well be more than one purpose to the plan; the effect of the whole Church following a false pope, even unknowingly, would have put everyone into schism. This has the effect of using the requirement of papal obedience against the Church as a technicality (Apoc. 2:24 speaks of the 'depths of Satan'). We think Siri (or whomever was pope-elect if not him) surrendered his papacy to God, as though, once elected, it can be undone. It cannot, but it can be removed instead.

As for the papacy being prorogued (as we have suggested elsewhere), what it means is that a papacy is unfulfilled, and there cannot be another until it is fulfilled. There is a spiritual principle that no prayers are 'wasted'; following the same principle a papacy that no one knew remains unfulfilled as a papacy. Perhaps it can be described as an 'un-unity' of the Church. They were never united in this instance. Particularly if it was 'taken out of the way'. There really is no way to explain this, except that it is what is indicated by Apoc. 12:5 and 2 Thess. 2:7. This might well be relegated under the category of being a 'mystery of faith'.

3. We think they lost jurisdiction when they accepted the illicit 1962 alterations of the Mass by Roncalli months before the illicit council itself (this would add up, then, to roughly 'a time, and times, and half a time' or 3.5 years).

4.  Might this be compared to the incorrupt who, although their life here is ended, are nonetheless preserved as though they may take it up again ? Our Lord Himself has power to lay down His life, and to take it up again (John 10:18).

5.  As Siri (or whomever was the subject of Apoc. 12:5) made no known decrees, except perhaps to give up the papacy, or even to suspend it, no official act exists to include within the official Magisterium. Moreover, if his one official act was to suspend the papacy (leaving for the moment the definition of the length of the possible acts of the papacy which might enable this), then this need not be included in the official acts, as it might be defined as unofficial, because it has suspended the official. Self-containing as it were.

6.  For this question we are not concerned with whether this or that particular bishop has the proper Holy Orders in line with, and derived from, Pius XII. This means having proper ordination (before the illicit rite of Paul VI) from a valid bishop from Pius XII. A bishop can make a bishop if there is no pope, and there is nothing in jurisdiction which prevents this, as it is out of necessity, in our situation. That is a separate issue which others have covered sufficiently.

 

7.   The application of 2 Thess. 2:7 is not the same for both timelines. In the first timeline (towards Apoc. 11) there are no precursors, and thus no 'beast' with seven 'heads'. Otherwise it applies the same way. In fact St. Paul appears to repeat the essential point about the coming of the 'man of sin' (2 Thess. 2:3-6 and 8-11). This still applies to the singular antichrist of Apocalypse 11 but in particular it pertains to antichrist and his precursors  if that timeline should commence (Apoc. 13). See about Thessalonians here.

As to how, exactly when, or in what manner the papacy is to be restored as well as the Church we have no idea whatsoever. It is a mystery.