The “home-alone” position holds that sedevacantist bishops and priests are illegitimate and unauthorized shepherds. The problem with this position is two-fold.
1. Only novus ordo heretics and a few sedevacantist laymen hold the position that the post-Vatican 2 sedevacantist bishops and priests are unauthorized and illegitimate clergy.
None of the sedevacantist clergy have taught or practiced it as home-aloners insist.
Theologians such as Bishop Guerard Des Lauriers (Pope Pius XII’s spiritual director who drafted the Assumption dogma), Fr. Stepanich, and Fr. Saenz Y Arriaga (Doctor of Theology, Canon law, and Philosophy) all believed and held that their actions were legit and consistent with Church teaching and canon law.
The Doctor of Canon Law, Fr. Gommar DePauw actually condemned the home-alone position as “sheer insanity” and said those who spread it are “dangerously ignorant of Canon Law.” [1]
To prefer our untrained opinion on the law against the universal position of all the last Catholic authorities who specialize in the field is not reasonable. In fact, it’s not Catholic.
2. The home-alone opinion held only by the heretics and laymen can’t be proved.
The Church has never addressed the possibilities and extraordinary circumstances we find ourselves today. The teaching on Episcopal consecrations needing the approval of the Apostolic See is an ecclesiastical discipline according to Pope Pius XII who said so in the very document that forbids consecrations without the approval of the Apostolic See. [2] That discipline is the law under ordinary times and circumstances, which no longer exists. Pope Pius XII was not addressing our times and circumstances. In fact, all the teachings from popes and theologians on consecrating bishops, jurisdictional issues, etc. do not address the extraordinary circumstances of the post-Vatican 2 Church.
However, Pope Pius XII does allude to a possible good reason to consecrate bishops without the approval of the Apostolic See. Writing about Communism and the Church in China, the pope says:
50. It is obvious that no thought is being taken of the spiritual good of the faithful if the Church’s laws are being violated, and further, there is no question of vacant sees, as they wish to argue in defense, but of episcopal sees whose legitimate rulers have been driven out or now languish in prison or are being obstructed in various ways from the free exercise of their power of jurisdiction. It must likewise be added that those clerics have been cast into prison, exiled, or removed by other means, whom the lawful ecclesiastical superiors had designated in accordance with canon law and the special powers received from the Apostolic See to act in their place in the government of the dioceses. [3]
If it were absolutely necessary to have the approval of the Apostolic See under all conditions, the question of vacant sees would be irrelevant. Yet, he mentions it as a false defense, because the sees are not vacant. This implies that real vacant sees in a Communist world (where communication with Rome could be impossible) is a legitimate reason for consecrating bishops without approval. It would then be a necessity that excuses from the law.
All of the remaining faithful Catholic bishops and priests did what they believed was necessary. Bishops consecrated bishops, bishops ordained priests, and they continued on as best as possible to continue the mission of the Church.
Bishop Moises Carmona explained:
Pope Gregory IX left eleven rules and Boniface VIII eighty-eight for the true interpretation of the law. These rules, according to Canon 20, can supply the defect of the rule in a particular case, as in the case we presently find ourselves. Consequently, the fourth rule of Gregory IX expressly states: Propter necessitatem, illicitum efficitur licitum (Necessity makes licit what is illicit.)
The necessity of having Catholic bishops and priests and the lack of true sacraments can easily be seen; therefore, we were validly and licitly consecrated.
Rule 88 of Boniface VIII also expressly states Certum est quod is committit in legem qui legem verbum complectens contra legis nititur (It is certain that one sins against the rule who adheres to the letter and leaves aside the spirit.) Therefore, it is unjust to impute to the legislator a desire to greatly harm the Church during a vacancy of the Holy See by forbidding the ordination of bishops and priests and the administering of the sacraments to the faithful who ask for them. [4]
Bishop Carmona was a seminary professor. In 1991, he was tragically killed in an automobile accident. The October 2016 newsletter Adsum reported, “After a number of years, his body [Bp Carmona’s] was transferred to a crypt in a lower chapel below Divina Providencia Church. There are pictures of his body when laid in the crypt. His body showed no signs of decomposition and looked the same as his funeral.” [5]
It appears that God has performed the miracle of incorruptibility with Bp. Carmona as sign of his holiness, but also as testimony to sedevacantism and sedevacantist clergy.
The Great Western Schism was unprecedented in the 14th century. It required a novel explanation to resolve the difficulty of having a materially divided church over who was the true pope if there was one at all. The doubtful pope theory was one such novel explanation and it was not commonly accepted at first.
So too, the post-Vatican 2 Church is unprecedented. The Church has literally gone into survival mode. Catholics have come up with new theories on how to make sense of the disaster. What we don’t want to do is force our opinions and make the Church essentially ineffective, which is contrary to the Will of Christ and the teaching of the First Vatican Council.
We are not theologians and canonists. Our opinions are just our opinions. We ought to defer to the authorities as it is the safer course.
Footnotes:
[1] Introibo Ad Altare Dei (introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com)
[2] AD APOSTOLORUM PRINCIPIS ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII ON COMMUNISM AND THE CHURCH IN CHINA (1958)
37. We have heard that many such elections have been held contrary to all right and law and that, in addition, certain ecclesiastics have rashly dared to receive episcopal consecration, despite the public and severe warning which this Apostolic See gave those involved.
Since, therefore, such serious offenses against the discipline and unity of the Church are being committed, We must in conscience warn all that this is completely at variance with the teachings and principles on which rests the right order of the society divinely instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord.
43. We are aware that those who thus belittle obedience in order to justify themselves with regard to those functions which they have unrighteously assumed, defend their position by recalling a usage which prevailed in ages past. Yet everyone sees that all ecclesiastical discipline is overthrown if it is in any way lawful for one to restore arrangements which are no longer valid because the supreme authority of the Church long ago decreed otherwise. In no sense do they excuse their way of acting by appealing to another custom, and they indisputably prove that they follow this line deliberately in order to escape from the discipline which now prevails and which they ought to be obeying.
44. We mean that discipline which has been established not only for China and the regions recently enlightened by the light of the Gospel, but for the whole Church, a discipline which takes its sanction from that universal and supreme power of caring for, ruling, and governing which our Lord granted to the successors in the office of St. Peter the Apostle.
[3] Ibid.
[5] https://www.cmri.org/adsum/adsum-2016-10.pdf
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
In these times of apostasy it is a blessing to have enlightened people like you. It is certain that if we wait to have a true Pope to have legitimate bishops, we risk waiting a long time. We cannot bring ourselves to accept the invalid Novus Ordo clergy or the traditionalist clergy who recognize Antipope Francis and his false church.
Unless you can show me that your clergy have either ordinary mission from the Church or extraordinary mission from God, I am well within my rights and reason to remain home and not go to them for sacraments.
Speray: Are you suggesting that there’s a difference between ordinary mission “FROM” the Church and ordinary mission “OF” the Church? What do you mean by extraordinary mission from God? I don’t think our clergy are carrying anything but the ordinary mission of the Church but in an extraordinary way. I also don’t think they are carrying an extraordinary mission of God in the sense as theologians and canonists have used it in the past referring to Protestantism.
That is Catholic.
Speray: What’s not Catholic is taking your own private interpretation over literally all the canonists and theologians of our time. Since they literally all claim that what they do is correct, you have to PROVE they are wrong, which you can’t do. If you say so and so canonist said this, therefore, literally all the post-Vat2 canonists are wrong, then you have proved nothing except a difference in an opinion if not a misunderstanding of the canonist you cite. You should consider that perhaps you’re missing something rather than saying that literally all the post-Vat2 canonists and theologians are wrong on the very subject they are experts in.
Your post does not address this issue at all, which is the only thing worth addressing because it is the reason why people pray at home.
Speray: Part 2 will address some of the issues. However, you have chosen to stay at home because you have taken a Protestant-styled private interpretation on the teaching of the Church, laws of the Church, and the mission of the Church over and against the interpretation of literally all of the post-Vat2 theologians and canonists.
Introibo was too busy to address this issue, and wouldn’t address it with me, because he thinks I’m stupid and not qualified. Perhaps you think the same.
Speray: Did Introibo say you were stupid and not qualified to understand? I most certainly don’t think that.
But it is the issue that must be addressed, and all other arguments and considerations are pointless besides.
Speray: I think my first argument from this article is not pointless at all. I have chosen to accept the post-Vat2 heroes of our faith like Fr. Saenz Y Arriaga STD, JCD, and PhD who approved of the actions of our clergy. Who am I to say he is wrong about theology and canon law on an issue that it takes real training? And I have no one to pit him against. since no pre-Vatican2 canonist is referring to the absolutely extraordinary circumstance we’re in today. They probably did not think this was even possible and if so, they would have been terribly wrong.
Perhaps either you or Introibo can discuss it with Eric Hoyle who is smarter than me and more qualified.
Speray: Eric Hoyle is very, very smart and I talk to him regularly. We are discussing the matter here lately, and we have a difference in opinion on certain points. But we are working on it and may never come to an agreement. But I can tell you that I sent my article to him before publishing and what I published he didn’t have a problem with and he thinks is our best argument. I did have other parts that he didn’t like, and I left that out of the article in order to work on explaining some of the finer points before putting into part II.
I am just a simple Catholic with a Baltimore Catechism that says I am not allowed to go to unlawful pastors who were not sent by the Church.
Speray: Obviously, but the question is are our pastors unlawful? Do I have to prove it? I don’t think so, since I don’t have to prove anything about our faith. I may give my best arguments, but in the end, I go with the universal interpretation of the Catholic clergy rather than my own private interpretation. Can you prove Jesus is God? You can give your best arguments with most reasonable explanations, but you’ll probably never prove it to most Jews and Muslims. They won’t think they are reasonable. Did I not provide at least a reasonable answer in part I? If you are bent on not accepting our clergy, then no argument will work for you. Like Feeneyites, no argument will work, because they are bent on not accepting BOD/BOB. One of our best arguments against Feeneyism is that literally every post-Trent theologian and canonist taught it, but Feeneyites have taken their Protestant-styled private interpretation of Trent, papal teaching, and laws over and against the interpretation of literally every post-Trent theologian and canonist. See the similarities?
Steve, don’t you think the private interpretation argument against HAs is a little self-refuting? I mean, if it is not private interpretation to insist that an ecumenical council is not from God because it was presided over by a false pope, and that the council fathers, the expert theologians and canonists, and the pope were all wrong about the teachings they promulgated, and indeed the new rite of the mass which came out of it was wrong, too, then how is saying that a little band of priests and bishops is unlawful by definition of a catechism private interpretation? The whole world’s bishops is wrong we can say, but we can’t say that a handful of bishops getting themselves consecrated is wrong without being called Protestant? I’m sorry, but that is absurd.
The difference is heresy. Not every single bishop and cleric accepted the heresies of Vatican 2. In fact, it was a handful that rejected it and that’s how we got to be where we are at. If you say that every single bishop and cleric was heretical, then you have a major problem. It would be that literally all are heretics and thus no Catholic bishops left anywhere. You are comparing apples with oranges. There’s also the censure known as a theological error which goes against the universal teaching of theologians. In this case, it goes against both theologians and canonists. Part II will get into the authority of our clergy and Part III will get into the problem of the bishop in the woods argument. At least, that’s my plan.
Steve, if Eric Hoyle is a pray-at-home Catholic who is very smart and thought this was your best argument, then why does he not go to sedevacantist clergy? That doesn’t make any sense. If you agree on some points but disagree on others, couldn’t it be that what you agree on doesn’t make a difference to the issue and what you disagree on is what is pertinent to the matter at hand? It sure would seem so, otherwise you have yourself quite a contradiction, assuming I summed you up correctly.
Speray: Eric is working it out for himself. I do think that what we agree upon makes a difference. As for praying at home, Eric doesn’t have a choice in the matter anyway. He doesn’t have clergy anywhere near him.
Two, saying that you know the opinion of all canonists and theologians post-V2 is just begging the question.
Speray: Can you name a single post-v2 canonist or theologian that was against administering the sacraments?
You would have to show that they were Catholic since there was no pope for unity and confirmation of that and their actions betray them when they went against the teachings of the Church, they just claimed it was “necessary”.
Speray: I will deal with this in Part III. In the meantime, can you name a single post-V2 Catholic bishop or priest?
Rejecting V2 doesn’t make one a Catholic: there are plenty of Novus Ordo and SSPX clergy and faithful that do that.
Speray: Agreed, but I’m not referring to anyone who disagrees with V2.
Third, Billot states that universal adherence at the time of election is a point to “be maintained as completely unshaken and firmly placed beyond all doubt”. As Introibo has said, theologians choose their words carefully and those are some pretty strong words. But, Billot goes even further and says, “the aforementioned adherence of the Church radically heals the mistake in the election and infallibly indicates the existence of all requisite conditions.” He said “infallibly indicates” that the man elected is in fact the Roman Pontiff.
Speray: See here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2019/02/21/the-universal-acceptance-argument-revisited/
and
https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2022/01/10/the-universal-acceptance-doctrine-not-universally-accepted-how-we-can-know-a-true-pope-rules/
So, which of your theologians, canonists, or bishops was rejecting John XIII or Paul VI at the time of their election? Because the logical conclusion from Billot’s words are that the clergy at the time of their election who accepted them were not clergy of the Roman Catholic Church.
Speray: You have confused acceptance with adherence. Morally accepting a false pope is possible by literally everyone. Absolute adherence is quite another thing. Theologian and Canonist Fr. Saenz Y Arriaga did not adhere to John XXIII or Paul VI as he explains in his book. He was just one of several.
Thank you for your replies, Steve. I would say that you you do not have to prove that the pastors you go to for sacraments are lawful. They do. I look forward to your next part.
Steve is very thoughtful and professional. All that aside the EXACT problem for the Sedes is that he and/or their “pastors” can’t prove a negative. But….have no fear he will give it a try. Look forward to it as well. They are no match for TSB.
I have demonstrated that our clergy do have supplied jurisdiction by law in Part II.
Nice work. I can see that many out there do not understand the entire concepts but are using personal feelings and their own interpretations for a conclusion that want to fit their agenda. It may be confusing to those who want to find the truth when such info is approached the way it has been presented. There is a lot to follow and to put into proper perspective. I’ve found myself having to go back and review and critique many issues involved with all of this. I will say, it all eventually falls into place and you have info that has filled several voids. Thank you.