The term "Novus Ordo Hierarchy" & Where is the Hierarchy?
Nov 8, 2022 11:01:00 GMT -5
Clotilde and wenceslav like this
Post by Pacelli on Nov 8, 2022 11:01:00 GMT -5
As anyone reading my posts over time will know, I am very cautious about the use of new and unapproved terms, especially when they are applied to Catholic theology or law.
Someone recently directed me to a discussion in which it was being argued that if one rejects the "C-thesis," which is a novelty in and of itself, and also rejects "totalsim," which is another vague term that appears to hold that there are no hierarchical bishops left on the world, as discussed previously, then, according to them, we are then left with believing that the "Novus Ordo" hierarchy are the legitimate hierarchy of the Church.
This is an oversimplification of the matter. The reader of this viewpoint may think that all bishops of the "Novus Ordo hierarchy" are being made up of all bishops asserting to be the bishops Catholic Church, and that is certainly not what is being asserted by those upholding the Catholic position, as opposed to the formerly named heretical positions.
At one point, when the C-thesis restricted itself to only speculating on the papacy, material pope vs. formal pope, it was erroneous but not heretical. For those who are now asserting that all of the hierarchy are wiped out and gone from the world, whether so called totalists or C-thesis proponents, they are asserting a heresy against the Faith, and specifically they deny the Apostolicity of the Church. (Let it be known, that the term heresy is overused in our times, and is often treated more like a cuss word than a Catholic term, but I am not using it in that sense, I am using it not to stir emotion or to insult anyone, and I am using it only according to its meaning in Catholic theology and law, to point out that a dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church is being either doubted or denied by certain persons.)
One easy way to attack an opponent is to mischarazterize what he is saying, and that seems to be the case here. That's the reason for this post, to bring clarity and not allow ambiguity.
There is certainly a sect that exists that broke off from the Catholic Church in the 1960's. It was not a clean break, however, as with other sects. A Pope did not excommunicate it's leader(s) and those who adhered to the new sect. The sect began and was supported by the man claiming to be pope, Paul VI, followed by many formerly Catholic bishops, priests, theologians, and laypeople.
Unlike other sects in Church history, this sect continued to exist side by side with the Catholic Church in its uncondemned state. Many, even most Catholics of the 60's and 70's remained unaware that a sect even existed. This has been the status quo since then, nothing has essentially changed since that early time period. The Catholics are one side, retreating from the sect and its beliefs, and the sectarians are on the other side promoting their heresies and errors while pretending to be "Catholics."
So, where is the Catholic hierarchy in the middle of all of this? It is located in the same place it was during the 1960's and 70's, with those bishops, lawfully consecrated, who are the legitimate rulers of a diocese. So, am I arguing that all of the bishops claiming to be Catholic bishops in our times are members of the hierarchy? No, I am not.
I have argued that I am certain that the Catholic hierarchy can be found (note carefully that I am not saying will be found) in two places:
1. The old validly consecrated bishops appointed by John XXIII and Paul VI. This group consists of all certainly valid bishops who were consecrated and sent to rule dioceses. This group excludes those consecrated in the novel and potentially invalid consecration rite of bishops approved by Paul VI in June, 1968.
2. The second group consists of all eastern rite bishops, validly consecrated, who rule in their dioceses since the beginning of the crisis until our times.
Now, there is a third group that at least could be argued, and I am not certain about it:
What if a bishop appointed by the antipope consecrated in the novel Paul VI rite believed completely and totally in the Catholic Faith, would the jurisdiction be supplied by the Church to ratify the appointment? I am not sure about this, there are good arguments either way, which if anyone wants to discuss may be good fodder for a separate discussion. At present, however, I am certain that the Catholic hierarchy can be found in the two groups named above.
Now, to one last point, and that is to answer the question about who in these two groups are the members of the Catholic hierarchy. It is to be found among those who are not heretics or who have severed themselves from the Catholic Church.
Some may say, why don't these bishops condemn the sect and its beliefs? I answer, they should, but it's not proof that they are not the successors of the Apostles? Are not useless hirelings lawful bishops?
Let's briefly cover the type of persons, who have not publicly professed heresy and at the same time are deplorable, but yet retain their office in the Catholic Church unless or until the Pope removes him:
1. Cowards that will not profess the Faith or stand up against heresy or error.
2. Hirelings that use their office for an easy life that don't care about the Faith.
3. Those who have said or have done things that make them suspect of heresy, but have not said or have done things that are certainly heretical.
4. Those who ignore the crisis, along with the heresies and errors being promoted all over the world,
5. Those who are as dumb as a rock, that don't get it, and happily just keep doing what they are doing because they are either too ignorant on their Faith or too low in intelligence to identify what's going on.
6. Those who do understand what's going on, and conclude they can't do anything about it and just try to do what they can in their own diocese to teach the Faith to their own flocks.
7. This mostly applies only to the Roman Rite bishops of the earlier time of the crisis: those who didn't like the Novus Ordo Missae or the new teaching of Vatican II sect, but concluded (incorrectly) that it was not heretical.
8. Those who continue to believe the Faith but remain uncertain that there is a new sect, or that the teaching and laws of that sect is certainly heretical. This group deludes itself into believing that there is a way to bridge the Catholic teaching with the sect's teaching, if the sect's teaching is interpreted in light of Tradition. This group is living in fantasy land, but they are not heretics, as they have not denied the Faith or any part of it.
There may be other categories, but let's distill this to make it easier. A bishop does not lose his office automatically in the Catholic Church unless he publicly spouts heresy (and this doesn't count things that make him suspect of heresy) in his words or actions, or likewise apostatizes from the Faith or joins a condemned sect.
Does this mean that the bishops get a pass for their dereliction of duty? No, it does not, but they do not automatically lose their office, and that's all we are concerned with in this discussion. These bishops may be judged by a future Pope as far as failing in regard to the Church, and they will be judged by God at their judgment, and we don't know how that judgment will go for them, but I think they should certainly be fearful, but all of that is irrelevant to whether they are still the lawful office-holders, which I discussed above.
Someone recently directed me to a discussion in which it was being argued that if one rejects the "C-thesis," which is a novelty in and of itself, and also rejects "totalsim," which is another vague term that appears to hold that there are no hierarchical bishops left on the world, as discussed previously, then, according to them, we are then left with believing that the "Novus Ordo" hierarchy are the legitimate hierarchy of the Church.
This is an oversimplification of the matter. The reader of this viewpoint may think that all bishops of the "Novus Ordo hierarchy" are being made up of all bishops asserting to be the bishops Catholic Church, and that is certainly not what is being asserted by those upholding the Catholic position, as opposed to the formerly named heretical positions.
At one point, when the C-thesis restricted itself to only speculating on the papacy, material pope vs. formal pope, it was erroneous but not heretical. For those who are now asserting that all of the hierarchy are wiped out and gone from the world, whether so called totalists or C-thesis proponents, they are asserting a heresy against the Faith, and specifically they deny the Apostolicity of the Church. (Let it be known, that the term heresy is overused in our times, and is often treated more like a cuss word than a Catholic term, but I am not using it in that sense, I am using it not to stir emotion or to insult anyone, and I am using it only according to its meaning in Catholic theology and law, to point out that a dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church is being either doubted or denied by certain persons.)
One easy way to attack an opponent is to mischarazterize what he is saying, and that seems to be the case here. That's the reason for this post, to bring clarity and not allow ambiguity.
There is certainly a sect that exists that broke off from the Catholic Church in the 1960's. It was not a clean break, however, as with other sects. A Pope did not excommunicate it's leader(s) and those who adhered to the new sect. The sect began and was supported by the man claiming to be pope, Paul VI, followed by many formerly Catholic bishops, priests, theologians, and laypeople.
Unlike other sects in Church history, this sect continued to exist side by side with the Catholic Church in its uncondemned state. Many, even most Catholics of the 60's and 70's remained unaware that a sect even existed. This has been the status quo since then, nothing has essentially changed since that early time period. The Catholics are one side, retreating from the sect and its beliefs, and the sectarians are on the other side promoting their heresies and errors while pretending to be "Catholics."
So, where is the Catholic hierarchy in the middle of all of this? It is located in the same place it was during the 1960's and 70's, with those bishops, lawfully consecrated, who are the legitimate rulers of a diocese. So, am I arguing that all of the bishops claiming to be Catholic bishops in our times are members of the hierarchy? No, I am not.
I have argued that I am certain that the Catholic hierarchy can be found (note carefully that I am not saying will be found) in two places:
1. The old validly consecrated bishops appointed by John XXIII and Paul VI. This group consists of all certainly valid bishops who were consecrated and sent to rule dioceses. This group excludes those consecrated in the novel and potentially invalid consecration rite of bishops approved by Paul VI in June, 1968.
2. The second group consists of all eastern rite bishops, validly consecrated, who rule in their dioceses since the beginning of the crisis until our times.
Now, there is a third group that at least could be argued, and I am not certain about it:
What if a bishop appointed by the antipope consecrated in the novel Paul VI rite believed completely and totally in the Catholic Faith, would the jurisdiction be supplied by the Church to ratify the appointment? I am not sure about this, there are good arguments either way, which if anyone wants to discuss may be good fodder for a separate discussion. At present, however, I am certain that the Catholic hierarchy can be found in the two groups named above.
Now, to one last point, and that is to answer the question about who in these two groups are the members of the Catholic hierarchy. It is to be found among those who are not heretics or who have severed themselves from the Catholic Church.
Some may say, why don't these bishops condemn the sect and its beliefs? I answer, they should, but it's not proof that they are not the successors of the Apostles? Are not useless hirelings lawful bishops?
Let's briefly cover the type of persons, who have not publicly professed heresy and at the same time are deplorable, but yet retain their office in the Catholic Church unless or until the Pope removes him:
1. Cowards that will not profess the Faith or stand up against heresy or error.
2. Hirelings that use their office for an easy life that don't care about the Faith.
3. Those who have said or have done things that make them suspect of heresy, but have not said or have done things that are certainly heretical.
4. Those who ignore the crisis, along with the heresies and errors being promoted all over the world,
5. Those who are as dumb as a rock, that don't get it, and happily just keep doing what they are doing because they are either too ignorant on their Faith or too low in intelligence to identify what's going on.
6. Those who do understand what's going on, and conclude they can't do anything about it and just try to do what they can in their own diocese to teach the Faith to their own flocks.
7. This mostly applies only to the Roman Rite bishops of the earlier time of the crisis: those who didn't like the Novus Ordo Missae or the new teaching of Vatican II sect, but concluded (incorrectly) that it was not heretical.
8. Those who continue to believe the Faith but remain uncertain that there is a new sect, or that the teaching and laws of that sect is certainly heretical. This group deludes itself into believing that there is a way to bridge the Catholic teaching with the sect's teaching, if the sect's teaching is interpreted in light of Tradition. This group is living in fantasy land, but they are not heretics, as they have not denied the Faith or any part of it.
There may be other categories, but let's distill this to make it easier. A bishop does not lose his office automatically in the Catholic Church unless he publicly spouts heresy (and this doesn't count things that make him suspect of heresy) in his words or actions, or likewise apostatizes from the Faith or joins a condemned sect.
Does this mean that the bishops get a pass for their dereliction of duty? No, it does not, but they do not automatically lose their office, and that's all we are concerned with in this discussion. These bishops may be judged by a future Pope as far as failing in regard to the Church, and they will be judged by God at their judgment, and we don't know how that judgment will go for them, but I think they should certainly be fearful, but all of that is irrelevant to whether they are still the lawful office-holders, which I discussed above.