"Bishop" Mary Fidelis, aka Andrew Jacobs - His Dangerous Theological Aberrations

This is not going to be an exhaustive list of all of Bishop Mary Fidelis' errors since most of them stem from just a few principal ones, which I will outline here. I will be using the terms "Bishop" Mary Fidelis and "Bishop" Schuckardt in this article because that is how they are identified by most people. The use of the term "bishop," however, should not be construed by the reader as any kind of affirmation as to the validity of their Holy Orders, which this writer believes are doubtfully valid.

Bishop Mary Fidelis and I entered Religion (the original CMRI under Bishop Francis K. Maria Schuckardt) within months of each other and shared a common roof for about 25 years. We both stayed with Bishop Schuckardt after the 1984 revolt and both of us were consecrated "bishops" by Bishop Schuckardt a little before his death in 2006. After Bishop Schuckardt's death, I remained in the original CMRI for another 5 tumultuous years, endlessly butting heads with Bishop Mary Fidelis over doctrinal and moral issues, until my departure in 2011. None of the facts related in this article are speculation, rather they are facts that I myself have witnessed and/or have first hand knowledge of.

First Dangerous Theological Aberration -
Functioning With Doubtfully Valid Holy Orders

I. Chosen or Intruded?

It is clear from the above texts that no one may choose Holy Orders for himself, but rather he must be chosen by God. "Priests are chosen by God to manage on earth all his concerns and interests" says St. Cyril of Alexandria (De Adorat. 1. 13)

While during the long course of Church history the specific methods of "being chosen" have varied a little both in time and in place, nevertheless, what was always present was an election or an appointment by someone authorized by the Church for that purpose - usually a combination of both - and this constituted what is commonly known as a "commission." This was especially true when it came to the consecration of bishops, as no person could be consecrated a bishop without a commission. This requirement is found not only in Church law (Canons 953, 2370), but also in the official ritual book for bishops, the Pontificale. The very first words encountered in the section on the consecration of bishops reads:

If a lawful commission is absent, then the consecration of a bishop cannot take place.

So clearly no one can choose the priesthood or episcopacy for himself, nor can anyone be called to Holy Orders by someone who is not authorized by the Church for that purpose.

Now, let's take a look at Bishop Mary Fidelis' claim of having been chosen and see how it squares with Catholicism. Bishop Mary Fidelis stakes his claim of having been chosen by God on the sole fact that Bishop Schuckardt offered to ordain and consecrate him a bishop. True enough. He did make that offer. But did Bishop Schuckardt's offer constitute a "call from God?" Was Bishop Schuckardt even capable of representing God, and by extension, the Church, in this instance? In short, did Bishop Mary Fidelis enter in "by the door," or is he in the alternative "a thief and a robber"? The answers to these questions depend upon whether or not Bishop Schuckardt himself was chosen. If he was not chosen, then he was incapable of choosing Bishop Mary Fidelis. One cannot give what one does not possess.

Francis Schuckardt came into contact with a bishop of the schismatic North American Old Roman Catholic Church, Daniel Brown, in 1970. (Brown’s episcopal consecration derived from Arnold Harris Mathew, an Old Catholic Bishop who was solemnly excommunicated by Pope St. Pius X in 1911 for the “sacrilegious crime” of consecrating two suspended priests. [Motu Proprio, Gravi Iamdiu Scandalo, Feb. 15, 1911]) After some correspondence between Francis Schuckardt and Daniel Brown, Brown offered "to ordain to the priesthood a qualified member of your group (from the information that I have, this would probably be yourself) or two..." (Letter of Brown to Francis Schuckardt, 9-17-70)

Francis Schuckardt, after some time and further correspondence with Brown, responded "I accept your offer to assume the responsibilities of ordination and consecration as Abbot Nullius^[1] with the assurance of episcopal consecration thereafter." (Letter of Francis Schuckardt, Good Friday, 1971)

Thus, the ordination and consecration took place on October of 1971, but only after Brown publicly renounced his membership in the North American Old Roman Catholic Church and publicly professed himself to be a Catholic.

There is, of course, no mechanism whereby someone who renounces his membership in a schismatic sect and makes a public profession of faith is automatically enrolled into the Catholic hierarchy. More on this later. But it is clear that Brown, not being a member of the Catholic hierarchy (having never been lawfully called himself), lacked the capacity to call Francis Schuckardt to Holy Orders. Also, I've seen nothing to suggest that either Brown or Bishop Schuckardt ever claimed that there was anything more than an “offer” made. An offer made not only by someone outside of the Catholic hierarchy, but made by someone who was at the time outside the Catholic Church itself.

So if Bishop Schuckardt was not called, was he then at least elected? Did the people of the little community that he led and over whom he would later claim episcopal jurisdiction have any say as to whom their "bishop" would be? The answer is no. In fact, most of the people in the community did not learn about his consecration until about six weeks after the fact. That's not how the Catholic Church works. The following is part of the ceremony of ordination to the priesthood, publicly read by the ordaining bishop:

Further, the Council of Trent decreed that all candidates for major orders must first have their names published 30 days before their ordinations, thus notifying the faithful and giving them an opportunity to express any relevant facts regarding the candidates. (Sess. 23, Cap. 5, De Reform) Canon Law^[2] has since codified this decree and made it "obligatory" upon the laity to make known any impediments which they may have knowledge of regarding such candidates. (Canons 998-99)

Most of the people, of course, were not consulted or notified and what we sadly have here is the case of Francis Schuckardt, being neither commissioned nor elected, having essentially choosen himself. I am not here casting aspersions upon his motives and intentions during a very difficult time in the history of the Church, perhaps his motives and intentions were of the highest grade; but in the final analysis, that is inconsequential. No one can choose himself.

So it is clear that Bishop Schuckardt, having intruded himself into the episcopacy, lacked the capacity to "call" Bishop Mary Fidelis to the same. As such, one has to conclude that Bishop Mary Fidelis did not enter in “by the door.”

II. A Doubtfully Valid Bishop

Some years ago I published a letter that I had written to Bishop Mary Fidelis regarding the doubtful validity of our Holy Orders titled Bishop Schuckardt - Were His Holy Orders Valid? The reader can access this article if a more detailed expose' is wished for, therefore, I will only superficially touch upon it here.

In a nutshell, I did a thorough examination into the last six bishop predecessors of Bishop Schuckardt's episcopal lineage (and by extension Bishop Mary Fidelis' and my own) employing the Church's criterion of moral certitude.^[3] Not a single one of these six "bishops," none of whom was consecrated a bishop in the Catholic Church, could pass the test of moral certitude individually, let alone all six of them pass collectively as is required.

I also touched upon the fact that Bishop Schuckardt's voice box had been surgically removed, which required him to "speak" through a plastic valve inserted into his windpipe, and how this clearly affected his ability to pronounce the absolutely essential sacramental form of Holy Orders. The validity of a sacramental form “spoken” in this novel manner has never been addressed by the Church, and she and she alone has the capacity to make an definitive determination regarding it. I concluded my letter to Bishop Mary Fidelis with this:

I never got any meaningful response from Bishop Mary Fidelis regarding what I had written to him and he continues the dangerous practice of dispensing doubtful sacraments to this day, and this despite the fact that Catholic law strictly forbids clerics to exercise their Holy Orders under such conditions, even if a question of their validity is raised “merely for the purpose of being freed from his obligations.”

If a cleric is forbidden to exercise his orders for a bogus claim, i.e., "merely for the purpose of being freed from the obligations arising from sacred orders," how much more so is he forbidden when the doubtfulness of validity rests upon solid facts, as is the case here?

So with the exception of an authentic emergency (i.e., someone is dying) when no other cleric with valid Holy Orders can be found, the Church expressly forbids the exercise of doubtfully valid Holy Orders. Therefore, every sacrament that Bishop Mary Fidelis confects or attempts to confect is a violation of Church law and an offense against God. Those who knowingly participate in the same are also guilty of the same.

Outside of the sacrament of confession perfect contrition is required for the forgiveness of sin. In sacramental confession, however, imperfect contrition suffices. Human nature, being what it is, means that most people will choose the path of least resistance and will do no more than what is required. We all know this to be true. Now let's look at a hypothetical case, but one which has real life application and consequences.

Bob has committed mortal sin. He mentally goes through his list of what is necessary to remit sin in sacramental confession and makes certain that he has met all of the requirements, including imperfect contrition. He goes to church, confesses his sins to Fr. John (whose Holy Orders are questionably valid), and a short time afterwards Bob dies. Now if Fr. John in fact lacked valid Holy Orders, then he was incapable of forgiving Bob's sins. So unless Bob had excited perfect contrition, which he did not bother to do because he did not deem it to be necessary, Bob dies in his sin.

Had Bob known that Fr. John had doubtfully valid Holy Orders and that confessing to him might have been fruitless, then instead of being satisfied with imperfect contrition, he might have striven for and obtained perfect contrition, and instead of dying in his sins, he might have obtained forgiveness for them. These are the consequences. This is no game. The salvation or damnation of souls is what is at stake here. That is why the Church always forbids doubtfully valid clergy from exercising their Holy Orders and a most severe judgment awaits those who violate this Church law and choose to endanger the salvation of others rather than to humble their pride and egos.

Second Dangerous Theological Aberration -
Claiming to be An Ordinary

As can been seen from this Notitiae, Bishop Mary Fidelis believes that Bishop Schuckardt made him the "Bishop and Ordinary of the Ecclesiastical Province of Our Lady of Guadalupe."

Now as Bishop Mary Fidelis frequently and publicly states that he is indeed "the Bishop and Ordinary of the Ecclesiastical Province of Our Lady of Guadalupe," we need to examine what exactly is the Province of Our Lady of Guadalupe and examine whether he is, in fact, its Ordinary or not.

I. Province of Our Lady of Guadalupe

Immediately this makes no sense, because neither Bishop Schuckardt nor Bishop Mary Fidelis ever claimed to be an archbishop. Bishops rule over dioceses, not provinces. Furthermore, the Council of Trent forbade bishops to rule over more than a single diocese, so a bishop could never rule over a province, which consists of two dioceses or more.

But more importantly, there is no such thing as the ecclesiastical office of the "Province of Our Lady of Guadalupe." Bishop Schuckardt just made it up. It's not real. It's a fabrication. In the Catholic world, it has no objective existence. He couldn't actually create it because only the pope can create or dissolve ecclesiastical territories, including provinces.

This makes the Province of Our Lady of Guadalupe a fiction. It doesn't exist. So even if Bishop Mary Fidelis was a valid bishop (doubtful) and actually possessed ordinary jurisdiction (he does not), he would have no actual territory over which to exercise that jurisdiction. That would make him the bishop and ordinary of precisely nothing.

II. An Ordinary?

Bishop Mary Fidelis claims that he has ordinary jurisdiction, granted to him by Bishop Schuckardt, and therefore that makes him "an Ordinary." Before proceeding, a few facts about Holy Orders and ecclesiastical jurisdiction will be helpful.

Holy orders, even unlawfully received, can never be taken away ("thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech", Psalm 109), and unlawfully received Holy Orders, so long as they are valid, can be unlawfully passed on to others in perpetuity. This is why some non-Catholic sects can and do possess valid (but illicit) Holy Orders.

Jurisdiction, the power to teach and to rule, unlike Holy Orders, cannot be obtained outside of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church and she alone possesses jurisdiction and she alone determines how it is obtained and by whom it is obtained (the pope excepted - his jurisdiction comes directly from God). In short, Holy Orders can be stolen from the Catholic Church (the sole lawful owner of them), and like other stolen goods, it can get passed on to other thieves. Jurisdiction, however, can never be stolen and only by lawful means can it be passed on to others. Outside of these lawful means, jurisdiction simply does not exist.

So when Bishop Mary Fidelis says that he is an Ordinary, he is claiming to have both valid episcopal Holy Orders as well as ordinary jurisdiction over a diocese.

The consequences of being in error about possessing jurisdiction are catastrophic. I will not burden this article with a lengthy list of what jurisdiction is required for, but I will mention two critically important ones:

With this behind us, let us now take a look at his claim of possessing ordinary jurisdiction.

What's germane here is the fact that ecclesiastical jurisdiction is granted only to clerics.

The process of becoming a cleric and consequently becoming capable of exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction is called "first tonsure."

This, of course, begs the question: was Bishop Schuckardt or is Bishop Mary Fidelis a cleric in the Catholic Church? The answer to this question is important because if they were/are not clerics in the Catholic Church, then they would be incapable of exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction and consequently they could not have been or be an Ordinary. The obvious starting point in attempting to answer this question is this - did either of them receive first tonsure?

The process of bringing a layman into the clerical state outside of a religious organization is called incardination. Incardination is only permitted in the diocese that a person is domiciled in and it must be done by the local Ordinary (Canon 955). Those who wish to receive tonsure in a religious organization rather than in a diocese, must be tonsured by the local Ordinary where the religious organization is located (Canon 965). The Council of Trent decreed that "no one hereafter be ordained who is not attached to the church or pious place for whose necessity or benefit he is received." (Sess. XXIII, De Reformatione) Current Church law incorporates this decree:

By 1968 Francis Schuckardt believed that the mainstream Catholic Church was no longer Catholic, so obtaining tonsure and Holy Orders from them was not a consideration for him. As noted above, he then turned to Daniel Brown for tonsure and Holy Orders.

But it must be noted that while any validly consecrated bishop can validly (not licitly) ordain a man into Holy Orders by virtue of the power of orders that a bishop possesses; the power of orders does not, however, extend to tonsure, which is not an order at all, but rather only a preparatory step for orders.

Thus the power to bestow tonsure does not pertain to Holy Orders, but rather to jurisdiction. So while Daniel Brown could validly consecrate Francis Schuckardt a bishop (provided that Brown's episcopal Orders were valid), he could not validly bestow tonsure on him for the simple reason that Brown lacked jurisdiction, and this is because the process of converting from a schismatical sect to Catholicism does not confer jurisdiction. It may have reconciled Brown with God, but it clearly did not give him ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

So lacking jurisdiction, Brown was incapable of validly bestowing tonsure on Francis Schuckardt. Lacking tonsure means that Bishop Schuckardt was never incardinated into the Catholic clergy and thus incapable of exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The same, of course, holds true for Bishop Mary Fidelis, who being tonsured by Bishop Schuckardt, would equally lack jurisdiction and for the same reasons. So by definition, neither Bishop Schuckardt was nor Bishop Mary Fidelis is an Ordinary, because as non-clerics of the Catholic Church they were incapable of obtaining ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which is an essential and indispensable element of being an Ordinary.

III. Canonical Appointment

For the sake of argument, let's set aside the fact that Bishop Mary Fidelis has doubtfully valid Holy Orders, and set aside the fact that according to Church Law he has never been lawfully received into the Church's hierarchy and therefore incapable of being an Ordinary, and set aside the fact that the Province of Our Lady of Guadalupe is fiction, let's look further into his claim of possessing ordinary jurisdiction.

We have just shown that only a tonsured cleric is capable of obtaining ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but this does not mean that those who receive first tonsure actually obtain jurisdiction, it simply means that they are capable of obtaining it.

To actually obtain ecclesiastical jurisdiction, one must also receive a canonical appointment (provision, adoption, investiture) and this is only done by receiving an ecclesiastical office (Canon 145). And such an office can be obtained only by "canonical appointment." No canonical appointment = no ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

The necessity of this canonical appointment is not only a requirement of ecclesiastical law, but also a requirement of divine law as well:

Only one ecclesiastical authority is capable of granting ordinary jurisdiction to bishops, and that is exclusively the pope.

This, of course, does not entail that the pope must personally appoint every individual bishop.

This consent and tacit approval is to be found in the legislation established by the popes in Church law, and that law states:

So the question must be asked: what competent ecclesiastical authority or what pope conferred an ecclesiastical office on Bishop Schuckardt? None, of course, nor did Bishop Schuckardt ever make such a claim. So lacking the indispensable canonical appointment whereby he could have obtained an ecclesiatical office and the ordinary jurisdiction which attaches to that office, he clearly did not possess ordinary jurisdiction. And not having it himself, he could not have passed it on to Bishop Mary Fidelis.

Hence, Bishop Mary Fidelis has not been canonically established, and, quite frankly, that makes him an intruder.

"Thieves and robbers". "Let him be anathema." Strong words which show how serious the Church considers this violation to be.

Attempting to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction without a canonical appointment is considered by the Church to be a grave crime, and she punishes it accordingly.

There is just no conceivable way that Bishop Mary Fidelis possesses ecclesicatical jurisdiction and therefore there is no conceivable way that he is an "Ordinary."

IV. Apostolic Successor?

Bishop Mary Fidelis frequently refers to himself as a "successor of the Apostles." But is he? It should be obvious to the reader by this time that he could not be - for lacking certain Holy Orders, lacking jurisdiction, lacking clerical status and lacking a canonical appointment make such a claim impossible. But for the sake of completeness, let's take a look at what the Church teaches on this topic:

Doubtfully valid Holy Orders coupled with a certain absence of jurisdiction ≠ an Apostolic Successor.

I often hear the tired argument that we live in extraordinary times and therefore these teachings of the Church don't apply to our times (the proof of this argument is exactly where?). Based on this, some justify tweaking the teachings of the Church (always to their advantage) and further demand that the laity accept these tweaks. According Msg. Van Noort, this argument is destructive of Catholicm and clearly erroneous.

In other words, using extraordinary times to create extraordinary doctrine is nothing more than another iteration of Protestantism.

Third Dangerous Theological Aberration -
Belief That He is the Pope

This is such an absurdity that I wasn't even going to address it, but there are those who drink his Kool-Aid, so I am adding this section for completeness. Yes, Bishop Mary Fidelis actually believes that he is the pope. While he will not publicly make this claim, he absolutely believes it and pretty much demands that his followers believe it, if not vocally, then at least in practice. Of this there is no question.

The crux of this error stems from the erroneous belief that Bishop Schuckardt was the pope. During a pilgrimage to Rome in 1978, while visiting the church of St. Mary Major, Bishop Schuckardt believed that the Mother of God appeared to him and put a papal tiara on his head, thereby signaling that he was the pope. I was present when this event reportedly took place. Two of my siblings were present as well, along with a number of friends and acquaintances. None of us saw anything. Bishop Mary Fidelis didn't see anything either because he wasn't there. It wasn't until a considerable amount of time had elapsed that I even became aware it. Since then, a couple of people have claimed that they too have had a similar vision of this event, although these " visions" occurred some years afterwards.

Neither I, nor anyone else, can verify the authenticity of this alleged event. This is something that only authentic Church authorities can do. Nevertheless, St. John of the Cross, a master of mysticism and a Doctor of the Church, taught that as a general rule, all such supernatural manifestations should be rejected as not coming from God, because more often than not they do not come from God. I would argue that this is especially so if the manifestation is flattering to the ego. I would further add that rejecting this event should have been the only course of action taken because we live our lives according to faith, not according to the uncertainties and frequent deceptions of private revelations not approved by the Church. But obviously that did not happen here. Regardless, what is certain is that someone becoming the pope in such a fashion is theologically impossible for numerous reasons, some (but not all) of which reasons I will presently outline.

It should be noted that while Bishop Schuckardt believed that he was the pope, he never pushed this belief on others. In fact, I have never held to this belief and he knew that, yet I was one of only two people that he ever consecrated a "bishop" during the 35 years of his episcopacy.

Now, to Bishop Mary Fidelis, whose claim to the papacy rests upon his assertion that he was chosen by Bishop Schuckardt to succeed him (papal succession) and that he therefore become pope upon Bishop Schuckardt's death. More on this later. But it is clear that his entire claim revolves upon the fact of whether Bishop Schuckardt was indeed the pope or not. If Bishop Schuckardt was not the pope, then Bishop Mary Fidelis has no claim to the papacy as papal succession would be absent. So the scope of this article will necessarily include the alleged papacies of both, even though Bishop Schuckardt died many years ago. But first, a clear understanding of just what a pope is, and is not, will be essential.

I. The Bishop of Rome

The “primacy” of St. Peter is the diocese of Rome and the “Roman Pontiff” is the Bishop of Rome. Therefore, whoever is the Bishop of the diocese of Rome is by virtue of holding that office the successor of St. Peter, i.e, the Pope of the Catholic Church.

Contained within this decree is an important distinction to be kept in mind and one misunderstood by many:

So, whoever is the Bishop of Rome is the Pope of the Universal Catholic Church. Therefore, anyone claiming to be the Pope must establish that he is, in fact, the Bishop of Rome.

It should be noted that the above cited decree of Vatican Council I concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff is an infallible decree and must be believed by all Catholics for salvation. If anyone refuses to believe this decree, he thereby ceases to be a member of the Catholic Church. Assuming that Bishop Mary Fidelis would not be so rash as to openly deny this decree, the remaining question regarding him, therefore, can be reduced to this simple one: Is he "the Bishop of Rome”?

To be a bishop of a diocese means that a bishop has a flock in that diocese that he governs to the exclusion of all other bishops. (Council of Trent, Decree on Reformation, Ch. 9) Now, the Bishop of Rome is not an exception here, he too must have a flock in Rome (Rome being a diocese) that he governs just like any other bishop, i.e., he must be the Bishop of living, breathing Christians who are residents of Rome:

Now, is this the case with Bishop Mary Fidelis? Is he governing a flock in Rome? Is there even so much as one Catholic resident of Rome who claims him as his or her bishop? I've never seen any evidence of him being able to answer “yes” to any of the above questions. But it is certain that Bishop Schuckardt never had so much as a single Roman who claimed him as his bishop. It is also certain, at least from 2006 - 2011, neither did Bishop Mary Fidelis, who during this time period most definitely believed himself to be the pope. I highly suspect that he still has no one in Rome who claims him as his bishop, let alone the majority of Catholics residing there to fulfill the necessary condition (among other things) to establish him as the Bishop of Rome. If it is otherwise, then let him bring forth the evidence. But if he has no flock that he governs in Rome, how then can he be the Bishop of Rome, i.e., the pope? Clearly, he cannot be.

An argument is sometimes made that because we are living in the age of the "Great Apostasy," that consequently Rome no longer possesses any true Catholics left to govern, and therefore an exception must be made to the doctrine just outlined above.

Most theologians, however, including St. Robert Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Church, deny that Rome could ever entirely fall away from the Faith:

If the Roman clergy and laity must therefore endure and yet none of them acknowledge Bishop Mary Fidelis as their bishop, then on what grounds does Bishop Mary Fidelis claim to be their bishop, i.e., the Bishop of Rome? In fact, what would prevent any bishop anywhere on the face of the earth from making the same claim?

Some argue that due to the extraordinary circumstances of our times that the bishopric of Rome can be transferred to another location, and therefore one does not necessarily have to literally be the “Bishop of Rome” to be the Bishop of Rome (an oxymoron, I know). This notion that the diocese of Rome can be transferred to another location was condemned by Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors, which condemned the following proposition:

Even though Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus does not exclude the possibility of a pope himself transferring the Primacy from Rome to another location, the truth of the matter is that no pope has ever attempted to do it. In fact, it is the common teaching of theologians that even popes themselves lack the capacity to do this.

Theologians also teach that this is not due to Church Law, but rather to Divine Law itself.

So the Bishop of Rome always has been and must always remain the Bishop of Rome in the literal sense.

II. How Popes are Chosen

Both historically and doctrinally, the right of choosing the Bishop of Rome belongs to the Roman clergy:

In fact, with the sole exception of St. Peter, who was chosen by Christ Himself, every pope has obtained his office by election from the clergy of Rome.^[6]

In the early Church, the clergy of Rome and Rome’s neighboring bishops elected the Pope - more often than not the laity of Rome had a role in these early elections as well. This mode of election has since been altered from time to time by various popes, but not so altered that a pope has ever been elected without the input of the Roman clergy.

In more recent centuries, it has become the exclusive right of the Cardinals of the Church to elect the Pope. This, however, is in conformity with tradition and doctrine because the Cardinals are members of the Roman clergy, in fact, they are the highest ranking members of the Roman clergy; and in this capacity they represent all of the Roman clergy during papal elections. It is noteworthy that whenever a pope makes a non-Roman a cardinal, he gives him a church in or around Rome, thereby incardinating (incorporating) him into the Roman clergy or a neighboring bishopric. So when the College of Cardinals elects the Pope, they are doing so as the clergy of Rome.

So the right and prerogative of choosing the Bishop of Rome belongs to the Roman clergy. Historically this has always been the case and doctrinally it must always remain the case. The Romans^[7], not outsiders, decide who their bishop will be.

Now, as we are living in a time in which some believe that the Church has no known valid cardinals to elect a pope; an argument is made that under such circumstances the Church must have the capacity of selecting a pope through some other means, and that it was through one of these alternative means that certain individuals ascended to the papacy. They are correct inasmuch as they argue that the Church, being a perfect society, must always have the capacity of choosing her popes, even by extraordinary means if necessary, as was the case during the Great Western Schism. But these alternative means must, of course, be theologically sound, i.e., the pope must always be elected and elected according to Church doctrine.

As to these extraordinary means, theologians teach that in the absence of cardinals to elect a pope, the right of election devolves firstly upon the remaining Roman clergy:

And in the truly extraordinary case where even the above is not possible, the right to elect then falls upon the universal Church:

Now do the personal claims of papal acquisition advanced by Bishop Mary Fidelis pass the test of being one of these legitimate alternatives of attaining the papacy? That is, has he been elected by the Roman clergy or by the Church universal? In fact, has either he or Bishop Schuckardt been elected at all? The answer, of course, is no. Neither one of them was elected by anyone at any time.

As already noted in the short history given above, Bishop Schuckardt's claim to the papacy falls under this category of heavenly appointment.

Firstly, such a concept is an absolute novelty in the Catholic Church, both historically and doctrinally; for nowhere is to be found any authority supporting such a theory. On this ground alone it is to be considered a false proposition and so it must be rejected. The reason why it must be rejected is because all Catholic doctrine has its basis in Divine Revelation, not personal opinions or theories, which is exactly what this is. No one can fabricate doctrines out of thin air and impose them upon others for belief, at least not in the Catholic Church they can't. In man-made churches, yes; but in the Catholic Church, no.

In addition to this, a further problem arises due to the impossibility of verifying such a claim. It would be one thing if Bishop Schuckardt's claim had been authenticated by numerous credible witnesses, but the fact of the matter is that authentic credible witnesses are wholly wanting here, even though what allegedly occurred happened in the presence of numerous potential witnesses. If God really wanted to establish Bishop Schuckardt as pope of the universal Church in this manner, then why would He hide the proof of what He did? It makes no sense. Only public miracles can elicit public belief, not private claims to miracles that cannot be substantiated.

And yet another problem arises when one considers that Bishop Schuckardt was not the only one who believed himself to be the pope via a heavenly appointment. The following in a short list of other such claimants:

So who gets to decide which one of these mystically appointed popes is the "authentic pope" and which ones are the antipopes? One readily sees the absurdity of such claims - they are impossible to prove and it is clear that the devil is having a heyday with this. I've heard it said that to deny Our Lady's mystical workings in connection to Bishop Schuckardt is "to blaspheme Our Lady." I would argue to that profess it is "to blaspheme Our Lady," because it would make her the author of an absurdity.

But perhaps the most importantly the reason why such a Heavenly appointment fails is because one of the Notes of the Church is that she is a visible society. A visible society cannot have for its head someone invisibly selected, for if it did, then it would cease to be visible.

So it is obvious that any claim of an invisible, Heavenly appointment to the papacy fails for numerous reasons.

This is Bishop Mary Fidelis' claim to papal succession - papal appointment by a predecessor pope.

The first question that arises is this - is there any evidence that Bishop Schuckardt appointed Bishop Mary Fidelis to succeed him as pope? The answer is simply no. No such evidence has ever been produced. Only one succession document has ever been produced and I present it here once again for the reader to view. I will ask the reader to look at it and see if it demonstrates papal succession in any fashion whatsoever? ("Pontifical blessing" - all bishops are pontiffs, the pope is the Supreme Pontiff.)

Clearly no mention of papal succession is to be found anywhere in this document. Furthermore, no pope ever produced a document using the terms "Bishop and Ordinary of a Province" because popes are not "bishops or ordinaries of provinces," rather they are the Bishop of Rome and Ordinary of the world. In fact, the terminology used in this document strongly suggests that at the time of its execution that Bishop Schuckardt no longer believed that he was a pope at all.

The very best that could be said of this document is that Bishop Schuckardt wished Bishop Mary Fidelis to succeed him as Bishop and Ordinary of a Province. For Bishop Mary Fidelis to claim otherwise is a classic example of an "ipse dixit," "it is so because I said so."

The bottom line is that the papacy is a public office and the process of selecting a pope is a public event. And while the actual balloting may be in secret, just as it is in most if not all democracies, everything else about the selection of a pope is visible and knowable. We know who is voting, when they are voting, from where they are voting... And the conclusion is announced to the whole world. There never has been nor can there ever be such a thing as the secret acquisition of the papacy.

After having presented so much evidence, it seems superfluous to keep adding more and more, such as:

The list goes on, but enough is enough. He is not the pope. In fact, for someone to profess that Bishop Mary Fidelis is the pope and at the same time to profess that they are a Catholic are two contradictory positions. They cannot stand together. Because to adhere to the position that he is the pope puts one in opposition to the Church's doctrinal teachings regarding the papacy. There are no two ways around this simple truth. One belief has to give way to the other. If you profess that he is the pope, then you are not Catholic. If you profess that you are Catholic, then he is not the pope. Take your pick.

Closing Thought

One wonders how Bishop Mary Fidelis, while professing to be Catholic, could maintain so many positions inimical to Catholicism. But we must remember that he was once a born-again Protestant and like all born-again Protestants he has learned to dismiss the teachings of the Catholic Church in favor of his own personal "lights" and "spiritual experiences." This is basic Protestant theology and his conduct demonstrates that while he may have left the born-again movement physically, he has not left it philosophically.

The renowned Fr. Faber, a convert himself, offers us some insight in this regard.

As to the "spiritual experiences" which he places so much emphasis on and uses as proof of his claims, I will defer to Jesus Christ:

Debate Challenge

This was not my first challenge to him for a debate and the challenge still stands today. But he will never debate because his position in untenable. So he will continue to hide from the truth and in the dark throw stones at those who dare to expose him.

I harbor no ill will towards Andrew Jacobs. In fact, I feel sorry for him because he is delusional and living a life divorced from reality. That never ends well. The consequences of this, both for himself and others, are disastrous. He is leading people astray because his church is not the Catholic Church nor is he a member of the Catholic hierarchy. The reader, having now been apprised of this fact, is now conscience bound to act accordingly.

Where that leaves the reader is in God's hands, but it is good to bear in mind that in whatever circumstances God places us, His grace will always be there in abundance, provided that we put Him first. Of this, there is no question.

BTW - I am not peddling any sect. I belong to none. I stay home and live my faith as best as I can.

^[1] This is nonsensical. "They are abbots nullius if their church is an abbey church... Abbots nullius are invariably members of the Bendictine Order." (A Manual of Canon Law, Ramstein, 1948, p. 226) At no time did Bishop Schuckardt claim to rule over an abbey church or to be a member of the Benedictine Order.

^[2] The reader will notice that a fair amount of Canon Law (Church Law) is cited in this article. Some will criticize this practice on the ground that Canon Law is not longer applicable due to the impossibility of following some of the Canons. This argument has some merit as far as these laws binding "legally," but beyond that this argument is meritless, because with few exceptions, Canon Law is moral law, and moral law always binds.
“A moral law binds directly in conscience so that its violation involves sin itself. All ecclesiastical laws are moral laws saving the constitutions of certain religious which are purely penal.” (A Manual of Canon Law – Ramstein, 1948, p. 88)

^[3] Moral certitude "excludes all fear of error and every serious or prudent doubt, but not one or other slight and imprudent doubt." (Moral Theology, Vol. 1, Callan & McHugh, 1929, p. 224) What this means regarding Holy Orders is that the validity of one's Holy Orders must be free of "all fear of error or prudent doubt."

^[4] Canon 872 - "For the valid absolution of sins, the minister requires, besides the power of Orders, either ordinary or delegated power of jurisdiction over the penitent."

^[5] Canon 1094 - "Those marriages only are valid which are contracted either before a pastor or the local Ordinary or a priest delegated by either..."

^[6] Pope Boniface II (530 – 532) was not elected, but was rather appointed by his predecessor, Pope Felix IV (526 – 530). Some argue that this proves an exception to the rule that a pope cannot be elected without the input of the Roman clergy. Others argue that Boniface II was only legitimately made pope when the Roman clergy later ratified his appointment. But neither argument disproves the necessity of the involvement of the Roman clergy; for even if Boniface II acquired the papacy by appointment from Felix IV, the Roman clergy equation is still present, because the Pope is, after all, a member of the Roman clergy - he is the Bishop of Rome. Therefore, however Boniface attained to the papacy, he did so via the Roman clergy; either through Felix IV or through the approval of the other members of the Roman clergy. Furthermore, it is clear that Pope Felix IV was certainly a Pope, that he certainly appointed Boniface II as his successor, and that Boniface II was eventually certainly approved by the Roman clergy; whereas these facts are all absent here.

^[7] The sole exception of a papal election that was not exclusively done by the Roman clergy was during the Great Western Schism (1378 – 1417); a period in the Church’s history in which there were either two or three different claimants to the papacy at the same time. The Schism ended when the extraordinary means of electing a Pope was done by way of a General Council choosing the papal electors from various countries. Nevertheless, all of the Cardinals (many of whom were Roman) participated in the election as did also some other members of the Roman clergy, so once again, the Roman clergy had a say as to who their bishop would be. "In consequence of the distrust shown towards the cardinals, the Council did not wish them to be allowed to take part in the election of the Pope by themselves. To the twenty-three members of the Sacred College were added for this time only thirty other prelates..." (The Great Western Schism, Salembrier, 1907, p. 364)