No visible hierarchy? How long can this last?

[Bonaventure]

The visible hierarchy is the Apostolic Succession. Simple priests with orders have never comprised this. If the episcopacy went extinct, where would we get it from once again? The chain going back to the 12 would be gone.

[Kaesekopf]

The visible hierarchy is the Apostolic Succession. Simple priests with orders have never comprised this. If the episcopacy went extinct, where would we get it from once again? The chain going back to the 12 would be gone.

But, for the sede, hasn't it gone extinct?

Every bishop in the Church has offered the Novus Ordo.  They've signed onto and taught Vatican II.  They've ordained (or not, if you're a sede) priests in the new rite and they've most likely consecrated (or not) bishops according to the new rite. 

The episcopacy, from the SV "view", has gone extinct. 

(And no, the 52 bishops remaining who were appointed before 1964 don't count because they've offered the NO, ordained priests, or consecrated bishops using the New Rite, and they've handed in their resignation to [who they thought] is their legitimate superior).

[Gardener]

The visible hierarchy is the Apostolic Succession. Simple priests with orders have never comprised this. If the episcopacy went extinct, where would we get it from once again? The chain going back to the 12 would be gone.

But, for the sede, hasn't it gone extinct?

Every bishop in the Church has offered the Novus Ordo.  They've signed onto and taught Vatican II.  They've ordained (or not, if you're a sede) priests in the new rite and they've most likely consecrated (or not) bishops according to the new rite. 

The episcopacy, from the SV "view", has gone extinct. 

(And no, the 52 bishops remaining who were appointed before 1964 don't count because they've offered the NO, ordained priests, or consecrated bishops using the New Rite, and they've handed in their resignation to [who they thought] is their legitimate superior).

In all fairness, though I don't hold the Sede position, there are still the various Sede Bishops and the SSPX Bishops.

So in that sense it could be rekindled, but there seem to be much larger problems than just Bishops.

[Kaesekopf]

None of them hold jurisdiction,  which is I think where the apostolic succession comes in. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[VeraeFidei]

The visible hierarchy is the Apostolic Succession. Simple priests with orders have never comprised this. If the episcopacy went extinct, where would we get it from once again? The chain going back to the 12 would be gone.

But, for the sede, hasn't it gone extinct?

Every bishop in the Church has offered the Novus Ordo.  They've signed onto and taught Vatican II.  They've ordained (or not, if you're a sede) priests in the new rite and they've most likely consecrated (or not) bishops according to the new rite. 

The episcopacy, from the SV "view", has gone extinct. 

(And no, the 52 bishops remaining who were appointed before 1964 don't count because they've offered the NO, ordained priests, or consecrated bishops using the New Rite, and they've handed in their resignation to [who they thought] is their legitimate superior).

In all fairness, though I don't hold the Sede position, there are still the various Sede Bishops and the SSPX Bishops.

So in that sense it could be rekindled, but there seem to be much larger problems than just Bishops.

As KK said, they are not Bishops in the fullest sense. They possess the power of the Episcopal order, but have no Apostolic Mandate and thus no jurisdiction. They are basically sacrament machines, there to Ordain and Confirm.

[Gardener]

The visible hierarchy is the Apostolic Succession. Simple priests with orders have never comprised this. If the episcopacy went extinct, where would we get it from once again? The chain going back to the 12 would be gone.

But, for the sede, hasn't it gone extinct?

Every bishop in the Church has offered the Novus Ordo.  They've signed onto and taught Vatican II.  They've ordained (or not, if you're a sede) priests in the new rite and they've most likely consecrated (or not) bishops according to the new rite. 

The episcopacy, from the SV "view", has gone extinct. 

(And no, the 52 bishops remaining who were appointed before 1964 don't count because they've offered the NO, ordained priests, or consecrated bishops using the New Rite, and they've handed in their resignation to [who they thought] is their legitimate superior).

In all fairness, though I don't hold the Sede position, there are still the various Sede Bishops and the SSPX Bishops.

So in that sense it could be rekindled, but there seem to be much larger problems than just Bishops.

As KK said, they are not Bishops in the fullest sense. They possess the power of the Episcopal order, but have no Apostolic Mandate and thus no jurisdiction. They are basically sacrament machines, there to Ordain and Confirm.

Ah. OK.

[Kaesekopf]

Lulz

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[Bonaventure]

The visible hierarchy is the Apostolic Succession. Simple priests with orders have never comprised this. If the episcopacy went extinct, where would we get it from once again? The chain going back to the 12 would be gone.

But, for the sede, hasn't it gone extinct?

Every bishop in the Church has offered the Novus Ordo.  They've signed onto and taught Vatican II.  They've ordained (or not, if you're a sede) priests in the new rite and they've most likely consecrated (or not) bishops according to the new rite. 

The episcopacy, from the SV "view", has gone extinct. 

(And no, the 52 bishops remaining who were appointed before 1964 don't count because they've offered the NO, ordained priests, or consecrated bishops using the New Rite, and they've handed in their resignation to [who they thought] is their legitimate superior).

I don't think signing Vatican II or offering the New Rites necessarily entails defection from the Catholic Faith. Archbishop Lefebvre, whom I would help everyone on this board would consider a staunch Catholic, offered the NO at least once, ordained men in the new rite, and even signed on to the Council. Only the most brainwashed SSPXer would deny this, to save face. Doesn't mean he became a heretic.

[Christknight104]

I don't think signing Vatican II or offering the New Rites necessarily entails defection from the Catholic Faith. Archbishop Lefebvre, whom I would help everyone on this board would consider a staunch Catholic, offered the NO at least once, ordained men in the new rite, and even signed on to the Council. Only the most brainwashed SSPXer would deny this, to save face. Doesn't mean he became a heretic.

I don't think Archbishop Lefebvre ordained any man in the Novus Ordo, considering that the seminary of Econe was founded in 1970. From 1968, the year he stepped down as head of the Holy Ghost Fathers, Archbishop Lefebvre was living in quiet retirement, having no jurisdiction over any episcopal see.

[Bonaventure]

I don't think signing Vatican II or offering the New Rites necessarily entails defection from the Catholic Faith. Archbishop Lefebvre, whom I would help everyone on this board would consider a staunch Catholic, offered the NO at least once, ordained men in the new rite, and even signed on to the Council. Only the most brainwashed SSPXer would deny this, to save face. Doesn't mean he became a heretic.

I don't think Archbishop Lefebvre ordained any man in the Novus Ordo, considering that the seminary of Econe was founded in 1970. From 1968, the year he stepped down as head of the Holy Ghost Fathers, Archbishop Lefebvre was living in quiet retirement, having no jurisdiction over any episcopal see.

In 1971, at the request of the ordinand, he used the new rite. It was a Frenchman, I think. Old timers would know the name, which eludes me right now.

[VeraeFidei]

I don't think signing Vatican II or offering the New Rites necessarily entails defection from the Catholic Faith. Archbishop Lefebvre, whom I would help everyone on this board would consider a staunch Catholic, offered the NO at least once, ordained men in the new rite, and even signed on to the Council. Only the most brainwashed SSPXer would deny this, to save face. Doesn't mean he became a heretic.

I don't think Archbishop Lefebvre ordained any man in the Novus Ordo, considering that the seminary of Econe was founded in 1970. From 1968, the year he stepped down as head of the Holy Ghost Fathers, Archbishop Lefebvre was living in quiet retirement, having no jurisdiction over any episcopal see.

In 1971, at the request of the ordinand, he used the new rite. It was a Frenchman, I think. Old timers would know the name, which eludes me right now.

Wow, interesting. I knew he said the Novus Ordo once, but I didn't realize he used the new Ordinal; also, I thought he didn't do any SSPX ordinations until 1976...?

[Sockpuppet]

I don't think signing Vatican II or offering the New Rites necessarily entails defection from the Catholic Faith. Archbishop Lefebvre, whom I would help everyone on this board would consider a staunch Catholic, offered the NO at least once, ordained men in the new rite, and even signed on to the Council. Only the most brainwashed SSPXer would deny this, to save face. Doesn't mean he became a heretic.

I don't think Archbishop Lefebvre ordained any man in the Novus Ordo, considering that the seminary of Econe was founded in 1970. From 1968, the year he stepped down as head of the Holy Ghost Fathers, Archbishop Lefebvre was living in quiet retirement, having no jurisdiction over any episcopal see.

In 1971, at the request of the ordinand, he used the new rite. It was a Frenchman, I think. Old timers would know the name, which eludes me right now.

Wow, interesting. I knew he said the Novus Ordo once, but I didn't realize he used the new Ordinal; also, I thought he didn't do any SSPX ordinations until 1976...?

He actually said the NO daily until a year after the establishment of the SSPX. Lefebvre was really far more concerned about doctrine than liturgy. When it came to liturgy, he was actually relatively liberal. 

[VeraeFidei]

Econe used the 1965 rite for quite some time as well I believe.

Or, if you prefer, according to Fr. Cekada, the Rite of Econe.

[Bonaventure]

He actually said the NO daily until a year after the establishment of the SSPX. Lefebvre was really far more concerned about doctrine than liturgy. When it came to liturgy, he was actually relatively liberal.

The opposite of most folks today.

[Sockpuppet]

He actually said the NO daily until a year after the establishment of the SSPX. Lefebvre was really far more concerned about doctrine than liturgy. When it came to liturgy, he was actually relatively liberal.

The opposite of most folks today.

Yes, and no. You get a lot of people (particularly sedes) decrying "smells and bells" Catholics.  I think the liberalization of the Latin Mass, forced the SSPX to make a bigger issue about doctrine as they no longer had a near monopoly on the TLM. 

But, from what I've read about Lefebvre, I think he would have been fine with the NO if the problems he saw with Vatican II were addressed.