The Unmasking of "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

Brief History

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?

"Neither doth any man take the honor to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was." (Heb., 5;4)

“You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go, and should bring forth fruit…” (John 15:16)

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)

St. Alphonsus explains this further:

"But if for all states [of life] a vocation is necessary, it is necessary in a particular manner for the ecclesiastical state. 'He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber.' (John 10:1) Hence he who takes Holy Orders without a call from God is convicted of theft, in taking by force a dignity which God does not wish to bestow upon him."

"No one, then, however learned, prudent, and holy he may be, can thrust himself into the sanctuary unless he is first called and introduced by God. Jesus Christ himself, who among all men was certainly the most learned and the most holy, 'full of grace and truth,' (John, 1:14) 'in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge' (Col. 2:3) - Jesus Christ, I say, required a divine call in order to assume the dignity of the priesthood." (Dignity and Duties Of the Priest, p. 185, italics in original)

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:

"No one ought to be consecrated unless his commission is already well-known to the Consecrator." (Pontificale Romanum Summorum, 1891, Consecration of Bishops, Instructions, p. 366)

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.

"All the disasters that the Church deplores come from this: that men are admitted to the altar who were not called by God." St. Alphonsus to Cardinal Sersale, 1754 (The Life of St. Alphonsus Liguouri, by a member of the Order of Mercy, 1882, p. 312)

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.

Was Bishop Schuckardt chosen?

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:

"[A]s all on a ship, both the captain and the passengers, have the same reasons for confidence or fear, they should act together with one mind, seeing that their interests are the same.
The Fathers, therefore, decreed with reason that the people should be consulted in the election of those who are to minister at the altar." (Pontificale Romanum Summorum, 1891, The Ordination of a Priest, p. 366)

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 chosen 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.

"No one, then, however learned, prudent, and holy he may be, can thrust himself into the sanctuary unless he is first called and introduced by God." (Dignity and Duties Of the Priest, ibid.)

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.”

"But priests whom God has not sent to work in his Church he shall abandon to eternal ignominy and destruction. 'I did not send prophets,' says the Lord by the prophet Jeremiah, 'yet they ran.' He afterwards adds: 'Therefore I will take you away, carrying you, and will forsake you; . . . and I will bring an everlasting reproach upon you, and a perpetual shame which shall never be forgotten.' " (Dignity and Duties Of the Priest, ibid., p. 204, citing Jer. 23, 21-39, italics in original)

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:

"And perhaps of even greater importance is the fact that even certainly validly consecrated bishops in possession of certain ordinary jurisdiction (both absent here) may not introduce new theology in their diocese or anywhere else. The Church's infallible Mark of Unity forbids it. Only the Church Universal can do that. Any "bishop" denying this exclusive prerogative of the Church, whether by word or deed, makes himself yet just another one of the 43,000 plus Christian sects in the world who have separated themselves from the Catholic Church. I will not do that. You have."

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.”

“Though an action [against validity of Holy Orders] was instituted merely for the purpose of being freed from the obligations arising from sacred orders, not against the validity of the ordination, the cleric is nevertheless to be forbidden ad cautelam [for security] to exercise the sacred orders.” (Canon 1997. Emphasis in original)

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.

Disastrous Consequences - An Example

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

A province is more than a single diocese, it is

"the territory over which an archbishop exercises metropolitan jurisdiction, namely his own archdiocese and at least one suffragan diocese." (Attwater, A Catholic Dictionary, 1957)

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.

"It belongs exclusively to the supreme ecclesiastical authority to erect ecclesiastical provinces, dioceses..., as also to change their boundaries, divide, unite or suppress them." (Canon 215)

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), he possesses no actual office, only a fictional one. That would make him precisely the bishop of 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.

1. Holy Orders & Jurisdiction

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.

"When Orders are once validly conferred, no power on earth can revoke or annul them; therefore, even an excommunicated bishop can ordain a priest, consecrate a bishop..." (The Church of Christ, Berry, 1955, p. 149)

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.

"Jurisdiction is authority to govern and must be transmitted in the Church as in any other society; it can be conferred only by a lawful superior... jurisdiction in the Church can neither be obtained nor held against the will of her supreme authority; its transmission depends entirely upon legitimate succession." (The Church of Christ, ibid., p. 78)

An Ordinary usually refers to the bishop of a diocese.

"A cleric with ordinary jurisdiction in the external forum over a specific territory... the expression 'the ordinary' generally indicates the bishop of a diocese." (Attwater, ibid.)

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:

• Without jurisdiction, Bishop Mary Fidelis lacks the capacity to absolve sins in the confessional, as would any priest under his "jurisdiction" (Canon 872).^[4]
• Without jurisdiction, any marriages he performed would be invalid, again - as would those of any priest under his "jurisdiction" (Canon 1094).^[5]

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

2. Jurisdiction & Tonsure.

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

"Clerics alone are capable of obtaining the power of order or of ecclesiastical jurisdiction..." (Canon 118)

Importantly, Canon 118 is more than just ecclesiastical law.

"This is a strict right, not a mere privilege; a right reserved to the clergy because the divine organization of the Church enjoys the peculiarity that ecclesiastical power is granted only to those chosen by Christ. Hence whatever pertains to the hierarchical power, order, and jurisdiction can be conveyed only to such as belong to the hierarchy..." (A Commentary of the New Code of Canon Law, Augustine, 1918, Canon 118, p. 57)

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

"Those who have been assigned to the divine ministry at least by the first tonsure, are called clerics." (Canon 108)

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:

"Every cleric must belong either to some diocese or to some religious organization and no recognition may be extended to vagrant clerics. By reception of the first tonsure, a cleric is ascribed to - or as it is called, incardinated in - the diocese for the service of which he was promoted." (Canon 111)

3. Was Bishop Schuckardt or Bishop Mary Fidelis ever tonsured?

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.

"Tonsure is not enumerated among the minor orders, nor is it considered an order at all." (Augustine, ibid., Canon 108)

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.

"Jurisdiction, of course, no matter how we conceive it to be conferred... can neither validly or licitly be exercised without a canonical mission, which, on account of the monarchical principle of the Church, must be imparted by the supreme head." (Augustine, ibid., Canon 329)

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.

"An ecclesiastical office cannot be validly obtained without canonical appointment. By canonical appointment is understood the conferring of an ecclesiastical office by the competent ecclesiastical authority in harmony with the sacred canons." (Canon 147)

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

“In saying that papal adoption [canonical appointment] is necessary, we do not mean it is merely necessary because of ecclesiastical law currently in force; we mean it is necessary by the divine law itself.” (Msgr. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, 1957, Vol. 2, The Bishops, p. 323)

From whom do bishops receive their canonical appointments?

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

"Pope Pius XII spoke of the ordinary power of jurisdiction of the other Catholic bishops ["other," i.e., the pope too is a bishop] as something 'bestowed upon them immediately' by the Sovereign Pontiff... he taught that the Vicar of Christ on earth is the one from whom all other pastors in the Catholic Church 'receive immediately their jurisdiction and their mission.' " (Episcopal Jurisdiction and the Roman See, American Ecclesiastical Review, Mgr. Fenton, April 1949, pp. 337-342)

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

"[E]piscopal jurisdiction is not a claim that St. Peter and his successors in the Roman See have always appointed directly every other bishop within the Church of Jesus Christ. It does mean, however, that every other bishop who is the ordinary of a diocese holds his position by the consent and at least the tacit approval of the Holy See." (Fenton, ibid.)

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

"Every candidate for the episcopate, even though elected, presented, or designated by the civil government, needs the canonical provision or institution in order to be bishop of a vacant diocese, which institution is exclusively the right of the Roman Pontiff." (Canon 332)

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 ecclesiastical 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.

"One who intrudes himself into the ministry against the laws of the Church receives no authority, and consequently can transmit none to his successors." (The Church of Christ, Berry, 1955, Apostolic Succession, p. 78)

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

"[N]o one can presume to intrude himself or others into ecclesiastical offices and benefices, without a legitimate canonical investiture or provision... the Council of Trent declared, 'that those who undertake to exercise these offices merely at the behest of and upon appointment by the people or secular power and authority, those who assume the same upon their own authority, are all to be regarded not as minsters of the Church, but as thieves and robbers who have entered not by the door.' (cap. IV, sess. XXIII, de reform.) Moreover, the same Sacred Synod defined as follows: 'If any one says... that those who are neither duly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority, but who come from elsewhere, are legitimate ministers of the word and of the Sacraments, let him be anathema.' (ibid. can. VII; and cf. also Syllabus of Pius IX, n. 50)." (S. C. Conc. 29 June, 1950, AAS 42-601, italics supplied)

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

Penalty for Violating the Laws of Canonical Appointment.

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

"In order to preserve more inviolate these same sacred principles and at the same time forestall abuses in a matter of such great importance, His Holiness Pius XII has deigned to provide as follows:
An excommunication specially reserved to the Holy See is ipso facto incurred... 2) by anyone who, without a canonical investiture or provision made according to the sacred canons, occupies an ecclesiastical office or benefice or dignity, or allows anyone to be unlawfully intruded in the same, or who retains the same." (AAS 42-601, 1950)

There is just no conceivable way that Bishop Mary Fidelis possesses ecclesiastical 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:

"Obviously a man does not become a genuine successor to the apostles merely by arrogating to himself the title of "bishop," or by carrying on in some fashion a function once performed by the apostles. Neither is it enough for a man merely to possess some one, individual power, say for example, the power of orders.—The power of orders can be acquired even illicitly, and once acquired can never be lost.—What is required for genuine apostolic succession is that a man enjoy the complete powers ( i.e., ordinary powers, not extraordinary) of an apostle. He must, then, in addition to the power of orders, possess also the power of jurisdiction." (Christ's Church, Msg. Van Noort, The Church's Apostolicity, p. 152)

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 Catholicism and clearly erroneous.

"Scholion 2. Theory of an extraordinary mission.

Since the original Protestants obviously lacked apostolicity of government, they took refuge in an appeal to the theory of an 'extraordinary mission.' To put it briefly, they maintained that God could at some time raise up a group of men by an extraordinary vocation and confer on them apostolic functions if current pastors should become viciously corrupt...

It is clear, however, if any such extraordinary mission were ever to be granted by God, it would have to be proven by miracles, or other clearly divine trademarks. The plain truth is, however, that Christ's own promises completely rule out the possibility of any such extraordinary mission. Understand now, we are talking about a mission by which a man absolutely apart from and utterly independent of apostolic succession would receive from God the power to rule (or reform) the Church...

Granted that fact [that there will be apostolic successors until the end of the world], it would be a further contradiction for God to confer the same power or a similar power on other men who were not in union with the ordinary successors. In that hypothesis there would be two separate and independent sources of authority, both demanding, by divine right, obedience from the same subjects. The only thing that could result in such an hypothesis would be confusion and schism in Christ's Church. And in that event, one would imply that God Himself, who willed His Church to be unified, was Himself sowing the seeds of necessary division." (Christ's Church, ibid., p. 154, italics in original)

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

1. Whoever is the Bishop of Rome is the Pope

Vatican Council I (1870) defined that:

"If any one shall say… that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this same primacy - let him be anathema." (Session 4, Ch. 2.)

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:

“[T]he pope becomes chief pastor because he is Bishop of Rome: he does not become Bishop of Rome because he has been chosen to be head of the universal Church.” (Papal Elections – Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911)

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”?

2. Is Bishop Mary Fidelis 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:

“No man, according to the prevailing teaching of scholastic theology, could be the successor of St. Peter and thus the visible head of the universal Church militant unless he had particular episcopal authority over the Christians of the Eternal City… the successor of St. Peter, the vicar of Christ on earth, could not possibly be other than the Bishop who presides over the local Christian community of the Eternal City.” (American Ecclesiastic Review: The Local Church of Rome, Msgr. Joseph Fenton, 1950)

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.

"[T]he successor of St. Peter, the vicar of Christ on earth, could not possibly be other than the Bishop who presides over the local Christian community of the Eternal City." (American Ecclesiastic Review, ibid.)

3. Must the Church in Rome Always Endure?

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:

“[T]he Roman clergy and the Roman laity, as a corporate unit, could never fall away from the faith.” (American Ecclesiastic Review ibid., citing St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice)

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?

4. Can the Primacy Ever be Separated from Rome?

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:

Condemned: “There is nothing to prevent the Supreme Pontificate from being transferred from the Roman Bishop and the city of Rome to another bishop and another city by the general decision of some Council, or by the decision of all of the people.” (Denzinger, #1735)

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.

“[T]he most probable opinion holds that not even the pope himself, nor an ecumenical council together with the pope, could effect such a separation, but that the connection of the primacy with the see of Rome is absolutely indissoluble…” (Christ’s Church, Vol. II, 1957, Monsignor Van Noort, p. 274)

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

"The majority of theologians hold that the primacy is attached to the Roman See by divine institution and, therefore, cannot be changed under any circumstances." (The Church of Christ, Berry, 1955, p. 230)

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

1. How the Bishop of Rome is Chosen – Ordinary Means

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

“[A]n election to the papacy is, properly speaking, primarily an election to the local bishopric. The right to elect their bishop has ever belonged to the members of the Roman Church [the diocese of Rome]. They possess the prerogative of giving to the universal Church her chief pastor…” (Papal Elections, Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911)

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.

2. How the Bishop of Rome is Chosen – Extraordinary Means

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:

“Should the college of cardinals ever become extinct, the duty of choosing a supreme pastor would fall, not on the bishops assembled in council, but upon the remaining Roman clergy.” (Papal Elections, Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911)

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

“[W]hen the provisions of the Canon Law cannot be fulfilled, the right to elect will belong to certain members of the Church of Rome. In default of the Roman clergy the right will belong to the Church universal...” (Church of the Word Incarnate, 1955, Journet, citing Rene Grousset, Histoire des croisades et du royaume franc De Jerusalem, Paris, 1934-1936)

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.

3. How the Bishop of Rome is Chosen – Other Possible Means?

i. Heavenly Appointment?

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:

• Michel Collin (Clement XV), France
• Gaston Tremblay (Gregory XVII), Canada
• Maria Pius Lawrence Jairo Chiaji Adera , Kenya (over a million followers, calling themselves the Legio Maria)
• Clemente Domínguez Gómez (Gregory XVII), Spain
• Gino Frediani (Immanuel I), Italy
• Chester Olszewski (Chriszekal Elias/Peter II), USA
• Pierre Henri Dubois (Peter II), Belgium
• Valeriano Vestini (Valerian I), Italy
• Maurice Archieri (Peter II), France
• Mathias Vigan (Christopher XVIII), Benin, Africa

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.

ii. Papal appointment by predecessor pope?

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."

4. Bottom Line

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:

• how an appointment by a predecessor pope fails
• how the required universal acceptance by the Church is absent
• how excluding all of the other Catholics of the world from having a voice in selecting a pope is in conflict with Catholicism, i.e., he single-handedly transformed the Church from hierarchical monarchy into an unelected dictatorship
• how a doubtful pope is no pope
• etc. etc. etc.

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.

"If we are converts, we must never cease to dread the underground action of heretical habits of mind and heretical methods of controversy in ourselves. There is a leaven of inherent lawlessness in every man who has once been a heretic..." (The Precious Blood, Fr. Faber, p. 180)

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:

"Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity." (Matt. 7:22-23)

Debate Challenge

On March 21, 2016, I sent the following email to Andrew Jacobs:

"Let’s debate. Truth is not afraid of light and if truth is on your side, then surely you will welcome the opportunity to expound it and to correct 'my errors.' In fact, you are morally obliged to do so. Then again, if your position cannot withstand the scrutiny of Catholic doctrine, you can always have recourse to the playbook of dirty politics and bury the message by attacking the messenger. If the past is any indication of the future, I expect the latter."

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.

A Word to the Few

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.

"As all men are bound to belong to the true Church of Christ, so also are they bound to use all possible efforts to find and embrace it, despite any temporal losses that may ensue. The amount of effort necessary will depend upon each one’s ability and the opportunity presented for study and investigation. Investigation is impossible for the person who sincerely and firmly believes that he already possesses the true Church, but the moment a doubt or suspicion arises in his mind, he is bound to use all means at his command to discover the truth. If a sincere and serious effort fails to bring him to the truth, he is still in invincible ignorance and, therefore, guiltless of his errors before God." (The Church of Christ, Berry, 1955, Members of the Church, p. 139)

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.

“For if he prays, God without doubt would infuse in him His light concerning the true religion.” (St. Alphonsus)

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

Bishop Joseph Marie
bishopjosephmarie.org
Email: me@bishopjosephmarie.org

* UPDATE *

(8/24)

The Further Unmasking
of "Bishop" Mary Fidelis

"It is charity to cry out 'wolf,' when the wolf is among the sheep,
and indeed wherever he may be." (St Francis de Sales)

Bleeding membership due to their inability to prove their claim to possess ecclesiastical jurisdiction, without which everything they do is illegal and frequently invalid, "Bishop" Mary Fidelis had one of his "priests," Mark Barnes ("Fr." Alphonsus) gave an in-house, damage-control lecture on July 7, 2024, with Bishop Mary Fidelis in attendance, trying to convince those present that Bishop Mary Fidelis and his "clergy" do actually possess ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

The thrust of this rambling lecture was to attempt to convince their sect members that Bishop Schuckardt (and by extension, Bishop Mary Fidelis) obtained ecclesiastical jurisdiction: 1) solely by virtue of being consecrated a bishop and 2) by the fact that a small handful of uneducated lay people, scattered here and there throughout the U.S., accepted Bishop Schuckardt as their bishop.

This lecture was riddled with errors, falsehoods and gratuitous assumptions. In the interest of time, however, I will only highlight those errors which are most relevant to my objective - to debunk their false narrative that they possess ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

I. Bishop Mary Fidelis' Latest Jurisdiction Claim

1. "The Book"

Throughout the course of this 63 minute lecture, reference was made to a book, which they asserted proved their thesis - that they possessed jurisdiction. In fact, as already noted above, they referenced this book no less than 30 times during this lecture. It was clear from this lecture that this book was the meat of their thesis:

"So, Bishop Francis Konrad Maria had good reasons behind him. It's in this book. It's somebody's else's idea. It's not something he cooked up, or I cooked up, or Bishop Mary Fidelis. It's actually here in this book." (Lecture @ 1:01:40)

So what is this bombshell of a theological masterpiece that Mark Barnes was referring to? What is "this book"? He didn't tell us. Not once did he mention either the name of this mystery book or the name of its author, even though someone (not me) requested this information. This is amazing, They cited this book as the very bedrock of their claim to jurisdiction and referenced it no less than 30 times in 63 minutes. One would have thought that it was the second coming of the Bible! And yet never once did they identify it. Hmm. Was it just a mere coincidence that they neither identified this book nor its author? Or are there perhaps reasons why they wanted to keep this book under wraps?

Maybe reasons like:

• The author was participant in both the Second Vatican Council and at the First Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (1967), as well as a consultant to the Congregation of the Clergy and the Pontifical Commission for the reform of the Code (new Vatican 2 code of canon law)


• The author was an active member of the Vatican 2 church until his retirement in 1981


• That this mystery book cites the works of Vatican 2 activist Karl Rahner three times - (pp. 92, 93, 95)


• That this mystery book cites a work of "pope" John XXIII, AAS 50, [1958], 983 (p. 148)


• That this mystery book makes frequent references to Vatican Council 2 (pgs. vi, 9, 74, 94, 121, 138-9, 149)


• That this mystery book promotes the teachings of Paul 6: "Actually, our reigning Pontiff, Paul VI, in an Allocution to the Roman Curia on September 21, 1963, manifested his mind on this subject in these words: ..." (p. 140)


• That this mystery book cites that "our happily reigning Supreme Pontiff Paul VI approved the decrees at the end of the second session of the Second Vatican Council..." (p. 149)


• And most importantly, that this mystery book actually debunks Bishop Mary Fidelis' claim that he and his "clergy" possess jurisdiction. More on that later.

But maybe not naming this book (The Papacy, The Episcopacy, and Collegiality, Wilhelm Bertrams, S.J., 1964) was just a coincidence.

"Oh, the webs we weave, when we first practice to deceive."

2. The Source of Episcopal Jurisdiction

Bishop Mary Fidelis, via his mouthpiece Mark Barnes, tried to make a case for his jurisdiction by stating:

"So when he [Bishop Brown] agreed to consecrate Bishop Francis Konrad Maria [Schuckardt], it was with this recognition, that he would be the one receiving jurisdiction from the consecration itself." (@52:40)

"Jurisdiction from the consecration itself" claimed Mark Barnes. He spent the first 53 minutes of this lecture trying to establish this thesis, and in the process necessarily and explicitly contradicted Pope Pius XII who taught in his encyclical, Mystici Corporis, that bishops received their jurisdiction directly from the pope, and not "from the consecration itself."

"Yet in exercising this office they [bishops] are not altogether independent, but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff." (Mystici Corporis, Pius XII, 1943, italics supplied)

A little bit of background will be useful to put this issue into context.

Background

Historically there had been two theories as to how bishops obtained ordinary jurisdiction:
* Episcopal theory - bishops receive their jurisdiction directly from God.
* Papal theory - bishops receive their jurisdiction directly from the Pope.

After Mystici Corporis, the common teaching of theologians was that the episcopal theory is no longer viable.

"Following this explicit, even though brief, declaration of Pius XII the first opinion [episcopal theory] is, we feel, no longer tenable. We would agree with Cardinal Ottaviani's statement that the second opinion [papal theory - bishops receive their jurisdiction directly from the pope] 'should now... be rated as absolutely certain because of the words of the supreme pontiff, Pius XII.' " (Christ's Church, Msgr. Van Noort, The Bishops, p. 326, citing Zapalena, loc. cit., p. 105)

And to put to rest any doubts about this issue whatsoever, Pius XII published three more documents, an allocution followed by two additional encyclicals (and these were published after theologians had already concluded that the episcopal theory was dead) which further confirmed the source of episcopal jurisdiction as coming directly from the pope:

"[T]he Vicar of Christ is the center of its [the Church's] unity and the fount of authority, as one to whom all the other Pastors must be united, and from whom these receive immediately their jurisdiction and their mission." (Allocutio ad Parochos Urbis, PPXII, AAS XXIV, 1942, 141, italics supplied)

“But the power of jurisdiction, which is conferred upon the Supreme Pontiff directly by divine rights, flows to the Bishops by the same right, but only through the Successor of St. Peter...” (Ad Sinarum Gentem, PPXII, 1954, italics supplied)

"[J]urisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis... [bishops] enjoying ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff... (Ad Apostolorum Principis, PP XII, 6/29/58, italics supplied)

There is no longer an "episcopal theory." Pius XII killed it. Popes can do that, including by means of encyclical letters:

"Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: 'He who heareth you, heareth me'; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians." (Humani Generis, Pius XII, 1950, my emphasis)

So the issue is settled. It is a doctrinal fact that bishops get their jurisdiction directly from the pope.

Bishop Mary Fidelis' Dilemma

But to accept this Church doctrine would be the death knell of Bishop Mary Fidelis' claim to jurisdiction, because clearly no pope granted him any. So they had to find a run-around. But where were they to find it?

Enter: "The Book." Now they have found a lifeline! A book that proposed a new theory that they could stake their claims on (or so they erroneously contend).

Mark Barnes on this book:

"He comes to, um, explaining his own theory, which is that, both of them [papal theory, episcopal theory] are right, and both of them are partly wrong. (@42:40)

"So, he's saying both of these ideas are both party right and both partly wrong..." (@52:25)

This is unbelievable. Mark Barnes is telling his poorly educated sect members to reject what Pope Pius XII authoritatively taught in one allocution and in four encyclicals (Allocutio ad Parochos Urbis, Humani Generis, Mystici Corporis, Ad Sinarum Gentem and Ad Apostolorum Principis) and to accept in its place the theory of a man Barnes will not even name. Can any serious-minded person actually accept this nonsense? Are we really supposed to accept a theory concocted by a modernist priest over the authoritative teachings of the Supreme Pontiff?

And irony of ironies, their mystery book itself condemns their position!

Mystery book:

"Since episcopal consecration does not produce union with the rest of the bishops, i.e., incorporate the power conferred within the hierarchy of the Church, it is not sufficient of itself to empower the consecrated bishop to exercise episcopal power [jurisdiction] in the Church validly." (Mystery book, 112, my emphasis)

So there you have it. Their mystery book rebuts their contention that jurisdiction was obtained simply by the episcopal consecration itself. The reader now understands why they did not disclose the identity of this book and why they only quoted certain cherry-picked portions of it. Their intent was clearly to deceive their listeners.

What we are dealing with here is a classic case of "survival theology." They would not be able to maintain their contention that they possessed jurisdiction if they actually accepted the authentic doctrines of the Catholic Church. So in order to continue their charade they found it necessary to alter Church doctrine. Welcome to Protestantism 101.

3. How Bishop Schuckardt "Obtained" an Episcopal See

Church law states that jurisdiction can be exercised only over subjects (Canon 201). Mark Barnes is playing games with this canon by saying that because Bishop Schuckardt had some lay people who accepted his authority (and many who didn't!) at the time of his consecration, that this somehow constituted a flock over whom he could exercise jurisdiction.

Mark Barnes:

"And I think that this is important, he [Bishop Schuckardt] invited delegates from every major Fatima Crusader group in the country. I think that there was, Bro. Michael Marie probably remembers, there was about, 40 or 50 people there? Something like that? From all over the country, a couple from here and a couple from there, and they came from all of the large, different Fatima groups, Fatima Cell groups that we had, to immediately accept his authority as their bishop. So he had a specific portion of the Church to govern at his consecration." (@54:15)

This is fantasy. The Church is hierarchical, not congregational. Jurisdiction, i.e., the authority to rule the Church, comes from above (God), not from below (the laity).

Canon 109 spells out very clearly the hierarchical nature of jurisdiction. And it is clear that whether the laity accept a bishop or not has no bearing whatsoever on that bishop's jurisdiction.

"Persons who are received into the ecclesiastical hierarchy are not accepted by the consent or at the call of the people or of the secular power, but are constituted in the degrees of the power of orders by sacred ordination. In the Supreme Pontificate, the person legitimately elected and freely accepting the election receives jurisdiction by the divine law itself; in all other degrees of jurisdiction by canonical appointment". (Canon 109, emphasis supplied)

And this canonical appointment can come only from the pope:

"Every candidate for the episcopate, even though elected, presented, or designated by the civil government, needs the canonical provision or institution in order to be bishop of a vacant diocese, which institution is exclusively the right of the Roman Pontiff." (Canon 332, italics provided)

What Bishop Mary Fidelis is doing here, by rejecting Church doctrine and fabricating his own instead, is nothing more than another form of Protestantism - the heretical notion that the people get to decide who their pastors will be. This may work in his head, but it doesn't work in the eyes of God or in the eyes of the Church, and consequently, true Catholics must reject such a notion.

"[T]here can be no legitimate successor in the Church of Christ who has not received jurisdiction either directly or indirectly from her supreme authority." (Berry, ibid., p. 78-9)

But "it's actually here in this book" says Mark Barnes.

Indeed, it is. This mystery book that Bishop Mary Fidelis' sect has touted as the foundation stone of their claim to jurisdiction does indeed have something to say in this matter:

"Accordingly, the canonical mission is required by divine law for the valid exercise of the power of jurisdiction." (Mystery book, p. 128, emphasis supplied)

"Consequently, if the Pope has not recognized the conferral of episcopal power, this power lacks its requisite external structure... Without the requisite external structure the power itself is not completely constituted; it is not efficacious and cannot be exercised." (Mystery book, p. 113, my emphasis)

So "the book" is in perfect conformity with Canons 109 and 332 cited above, and teaches, in conformity with these Canons, that a canonical appointment by the pope is required for obtaining jurisdiction, and that as a result of divine law itself. For some strange reason these portions of "the book" didn't make it into Mark Barnes' lecture. How about that.

4. Indefectibility of the Catholic Church

One of the attributes of the Church is indefectibility. This simply means that she will always remain substantially the same until the end of the world. Under the umbrella of indefectibility is found the Church's Mark of Apostolicity. Among other things, the Mark of Apostolicity assures us that there will always be successors to the Apostles until the end of time, i.e., bishops with the fullness of jurisdiction.

"Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Catholic Encyclopedia, The Church, Indefectibility of the Church, 1908, italics supplied)

"It follows, then, that all power, whether of Orders or jurisdiction, must be perpetuated by an unbroken line of succession, reaching back to the Apostles... the Apostles must have successors to perpetuate their powers of teaching, governing, and sanctifying until the end of time..." (Berry, 156, 157, bold supplied)

These successors of the Apostles are, of course, the bishops of the Catholic Church:

"Bishops are the successors of the Apostles..." (Canon 329)

But Bishop Mary Fidelis' sect holds that succession was broken, as expressed by Mark Barnes:

"I think Bishop Francis Konrad Maria recognized that when he was consecrated, there were no bishops, there was no pope, and he [Brown] was like one of the very few in the world, that he knew of, that recognized that fact. There were no other bishops except this schismatic bishop, Bishop Brown..." (@53:40)

There were no bishops? No other bishops except this schismatic bishop? This is a heretical statement! It is a denial of a dogma of faith:

"[I]t was Christ's will that the apostolic college should continue forever, in such a way that there would always be in the Church a body of men invested with that threefold power which the apostles enjoyed. This thesis is a dogma of faith, as we know, e.g., from the Council of Trent, Sess. 23, c. 4 (DB 960) (Christ's Church, Van Noort, 1957, The Church's Nature, p. 37, italics in original)

The Church teaches that schismatic and heretical bishops are not "invested with that threefold power which the Apostles enjoyed." So teaching that there were no other bishops "except this schismatic bishop" is a blatant denial of this dogma.

It is apparently this sect's belief that either schismatic bishops possess the fullness of apostolic authority or that apostolic succession failed and was only restored again by the consecration of Bishop Schuckardt. Heresy either way. Anathema sit.

5. It's All a Just Theory

Mark Barnes admitted, toward the end of his lecture, that what he just presented was not approved Church doctrine, but rather it was just a theory. He said that not once, not twice, but on three separate occasions:

At this point, someone might object, yes, but this is just a theory. Okay. (lecture @ 59:22)

"It's not something he cooked up, or I cooked up, or Bishop Mary Fidelis, it's actually here in this book. But it's just a theory... (lecture @ 1:01:40)

"...if somebody were to object that it is just a theory, the Church takes away..." (lecture @ 1:01:55)

This is revealing. For 53 years this sect taught that Bishop Schuckardt and Bishop Mary Fidelis were Ordinaries who possessed the fullness of episcopal jurisdiction. They taught this as an absolute truth. And now, 53 years later, they inadvertently called attention to the fact that they have been lying to everyone all of this time. That the source of their jurisdiction was not based upon fact at all, but was rather based upon an unproven theory. An unproven theory concocted by some modernist priest whom they will not even name, and who, by the way, completely disagrees with their conclusion. Are people really expected to trust the welfare of their souls to such prevaricators?

II. Supplied Jurisdiction & Canon 209

After unwittingly admitting that they've been deceiving everyone, Mark Barnes now tells everyone not to worry, that "there's no problem" because the Church supplies them with jurisdiction according to Canon 209. I guess this time around we are supposed to believe them? 53 years of lying and deception, and now they somehow have credibility?

Mark Barnes:

"At this point, someone might object, yes, but this is just a theory. Okay. Now there is something which comes into play, that the Scholastics are going to be studying more about, and that is Canon Law, and this is where we also talk about the Church supplying, Canon 209." (@ 59:22)

"... suffice it to say, if you are, if you think you have good reason to believe that you have jurisdiction, but you are not 100% sure, the Church takes away that doubt by this principle, ecclesia supplet, the Church supplies jurisdiction..." (@ 1:00:20)

"Canon 209 says the Church supplies jurisdiction. And, that's the end of the story. So there's no problem." (end of lecture)

Actually, Mark, there is a huge problem, because you are dead wrong. The Church does not supply you with jurisdiction.

1. Jurisdiction and Canon 209

Jurisdiction is the authority God gave to His Church to govern the faithful towards eternal life. This authority is necessary for the legality and sometimes for the validity of many ecclesiastical acts, including the sacraments.

“It is readily understood that no one can posit a juridical act unless and until he has the necessary authorization or power to do so... the required power, or jurisdiction, is necessary to posit validly a jurisdictional act. Those who have not that power, even should they possess all other qualifications, simply cannot validly act. (Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209, Miaskiewicz, J.C.L., 1940, p. 14, p. 219)

In order to avoid anarchy in the Church, jurisdiction must be regulated and this regulation falls under the domain of the popes. Accordingly, the popes have established multiple canons to regulate jurisdiction and Canon 209 is one of those canons.

2. What Canon 209 Does

Sometimes, due to a myriad of different factors, those thinking that jurisdiction is present for some act requiring jurisdiction may actually be mistaken, it may actually be absent. In some of these mistaken cases, the Church will step in and supply the missing jurisdiction, but she does this only under certain specific conditions. By no stretch of the imagination does the Church supply jurisdiction in all cases.

The conditions in which the Church supplies jurisdiction are:

"In common error or in positive and probable doubt of law or fact, the Church supplies jurisdiction for both the external and internal forum." (Canon 209)

To attempt to stretch these conditions beyond these defined limits is fatal.

"[T]he Church grants the necessary jurisdiction in an extraordinary way by supplying it in order that thus certain jurisdictional acts may be valid. But in such cases the Church carefully delineates the limits of the grant and the conditions under which the grant is effective. Outside these limits there is simply no title of jurisdiction." (Miaskiewicz, ibid., p. 161)

But what exactly qualifies for these required conditions of supplied jurisdiction are not always clear and oftentimes contested by theologians.

"Certainly there are few, if any canons [re: canon 209] which have provoked so much argument and contention or have been the subject of so vastly diversified doctrinal interpretation." (Miaskiewicz, ibid., Forward)

So it is immediately clear that there is a lot of gray area in the actual application Canon 209. In consideration of this fact, I will not drag the reader into the weeds of how I or Bishop Mary Fidelis interpret all aspects of 209. That would be a fruitless endeavor and quite frankly neither one of us is qualified to make these judgments. So I will stick to those things which are certain and above private interpretation.

3. What Canon 209 Does Not Do

Canon 209 supplies jurisdiction, but nothing else.

i. Holy Orders

Canon 209 cannot supply Holy Orders. If someone's Orders are defective, 209 cannot correct this. Since it is well established that Bishop Mary Fidelis and friends have doubtfully valid Orders, nothing that they do can be more than doubtfully valid (baptism excepted) at best. There is no getting around this. 209 can't help them here. Their doubtfully valid Holy Orders continue to remain doubtfully valid and everything they do as a consequence of this is doubtfully valid as well (again, Baptism excepted).

"[I]n regard to the dispositions of the divine and natural law, which were not placed by Christ under absolute control and disposition of the Church, the Church must be considered incompetent to supply. Thus, for example, the Church can never supply the power of Orders." ( Miaskiewicz, ibid., p. 24)

ii. Ecclesiastical Offices

Canon 209 cannot supply someone with an ecclesiastical office. Church law tightly controls all aspects of ecclesiastical offices and office holders. Providing citations for all of this would be quite cumbersome, but here is a general synopsis of how it works regarding episcopal offices:

The pope decides to establish an episcopal office (usually a diocese). He determines the physical boundaries of that diocese and then attaches ordinary jurisdiction to the office of that new diocese. He then appoints a bishop to occupy that office and in the capacity of office holder that bishop starts to exercise jurisdiction and becomes known as an Ordinary. This is the only path to episcopal jurisdiction. It must come from the pope himself or by a process authorized by him, as has been proven above. 209 cannot replace the pope or a process authorized by him. No power on earth can.

Now the only ecclesiastical office that Bishop Mary Fidelis lays claim to is the Ecclesiastical Province of Our Lady of Guadalupe. We have already demonstrated earlier in this article that this office is a fabrication of Bishop Schuckardt and consequently it is a fraud. It is, in fact, no ecclesiastical office at all. It doesn't exist. So Bishop Mary Fidelis, in not possessing an ecclesiastical office, cannot possibly be an Ordinary. Canon 209 can't help him here. It cannot bestow on him an ecclesiastical office.

"[T]he suppletory principle does not render an incompetent agent habitually competent. Thus, for instance, an invalidly elected bishop will never be a true bishop unless and until he is elected in the proper manner or has the matter sanated [healed] by the Holy See... Obviously, as in the case of the pastor, so in the case of the bishop, each and every attempt to arrogate to himself a power over and above his office would result in invalidity.” (Miaskiewicz, ibid., p. 25, p. 229)

iii. Clear and Certain Laws

The laws for obtaining jurisdiction are clearly spelled out in the Codex of Canon Law. There is no ambiguity regarding them and the fact of their existence is beyond dispute. That being so, 209 cannot be used as a run-around to these laws:

"[I]t seems highly reasonable to conclude that the Church does not supply in common error about a clear and certain law." (Miaskiewicz, ibid., p. 167)

In fact, if Bishop Mary Fidelis and friends could skip the ordinary process of obtaining jurisdiction and get it supplied by 209 instead, then why does the Church even have the ordinary process at all? It makes a mockery of the whole process and allows anyone and everyone, no matter how unfit, to acquire jurisdiction via 209. That would be an absurdity and make Church law a parody.

iv. Subjects Outside the Scope of 209

Canon 209, being part of Canon Law, obviously cannot be extended beyond the scope of Canon Law itself.

a) Non-Church members are outside of the scope of 209

"The censured, heretics and schismatics are not fit subjects of jurisdiction, inasmuch as their transgression has placed them outside the pale of active membership." (Miaskiewicz, ibid., p. 19)

b) Intruders are outside the scope of 209

"Can. 209 provides for the common good and public security as well as for the tranquility of conscience by re-affirming the well-known principle that the Church supplies the necessary jurisdiction when a common error or a positive doubt arises. Of course, the common error, to have this effect, must be accompanied by a titulus coloratus [colored title] or an apparent title to the office one exercises. An intruder has no such claim." (A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, Augustine, 1918, Vol. II, p. 190, italics supplied)

We have already proven in this article that both Bishop Schuckardt and Bishop Mary Fidelis were/are intruders, because neither one of them was ever "called" or "chosen" as is demanded by divine law itself. As such, they don't qualify for 209.

"One who intrudes himself into the ministry against the laws of the Church receives no authority, and consequently can transmit none to his successors." (Berry, ibid., p. 78)

c) Non-clerics are outside the scope of 209

Outside of some very rare exceptions, none of which exceptions are applicable here, only clerics in the Catholic Church are capable of possessing jurisdiction:

"Clerics alone are capable of obtaining the power of order or of ecclesiastical jurisdiction..." (Canon 118)

We have already shown in the article above how Bishop Brown, having never been incorporated into the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, lacked the capacity to raise anyone to the clerical state. The end result being that neither Bishop Schuckardt nor Bishop Mary Fidelis were ever clerics and as non-clerics, incapable of obtaining jurisdiction.

d) Non-Catholic sects are outside of the scope of 209

As just noted above in Canon 118, only clerics in the Catholic Church are capable of obtaining jurisdiction. To state the obvious: the Church does not generally grant jurisdiction to non-Catholic sects. In those rare cases where she does, the conditions are clearly spelled out (danger of death, etc.). If she were to give a general grant of jurisdiction to non-Catholic sects, via 209 or any other means, then she would be guilty of aiding and abetting these various sects in their errors. That is something the Catholic Church could never do.

The fact that non-Catholic sects are outside of the reach of supplied jurisdiction begs the question: Is Bishop Mary Fidelis' sect the Catholic Church? If his sect is not the Catholic Church, then this fact, standing alone, would disqualify them from obtaining jurisdiction. This is ultimately a question of identity. Is his sect the Catholic Church or not? Let's take a look.

Identifying the Catholic Church

"Since the Church is a society that may be recognized by all, it must have certain visible characteristics, so distinctive that they cannot be found together in any other society." (The Church of Christ, Berry, 1955, Properties of the Church, p. 45)

These "visible characteristics" by which one can identify the Catholic Church, as well as eliminate all false contenders, are known as the Four Marks of the Church. They are found in the Nicene Creed: "I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" and consequently they are a dogma of faith. Any church not possessing all four of these marks cannot be the Catholic Church.

"[A]ny Church lacking a single one of these marks cannot be the Church of Christ, and any Church possessing all of them must be the true Church of Christ." (The Church of Christ, Berry, 1955, Marks of the Church, p. 83)

A pretty simple formula. Any church lacking all four marks is not the Catholic Church. Now, does Bishop Mary Fidelis' sect possess these four marks?

The answer is an unequivocal no. He has been pressed on numerous occasions to prove that the Four Marks, particularly the Mark of Apostolicity, are present in his sect. He has never done this. To my knowledge, he has never even attempted to do this. Why hasn't he? Because he can't do it. Not even close. It is that simple. He can't prove this because his sect is not the Catholic Church. If he feels otherwise, then let him make his case. Let him put his critics out to pasture by simply proving his case once and for all and be done with it. He can't do it.

Summary

Let's take a quick look at all of the facts that have been proven in this article.

1. Doubtful Holy Orders - Bishop Schuckardt was consecrated a bishop by a schismatic bishop whose Holy Orders were doubtfully valid. That rendered Bishop Schuckardt's Orders doubtfully valid as well and consequently he could do no more than bestow doubtfully valid Orders on Bishop Mary Fidelis.


2. Intruded, not called - Bishop Schuckardt was neither elected nor otherwise chosen to be a bishop in the Catholic Church. He simply thrust himself into that position. That made him an intruder.


3. Not part of the hierarchy - The schismatic Bishop Brown, not being a member of the Catholic hierarchy, lacked the capacity to install Bishop Schuckardt into the Church's hierarchy. Bishop Schuckardt, thus lacking membership in the hierarchy, was himself incapable of installing Bishop Mary Fidelis into the hierarchy as well. One can't give what one doesn't have.


4. Lacking Jurisdiction - Since the Church does not grant jurisdiction to members outside of her hierarchy (with rare exceptions, none of which apply here), Bishop Mary Fidelis, as a non-member of the Catholic hierarchy, is incapable of exercising jurisdiction. Canon 209 cannot supply jurisdiction to someone incapable of exercising it in the first place.


5. Lacking an ecclesiastical office - The Ecclesiastical Office of Our Lady of Guadalupe is the fabrication of Bishop Schuckardt. In the eyes of the Church it doesn't exist and therefore whoever holds any office in this fictitious organization is incapable of possessing jurisdiction.


6. Excommunicated - Bishop Mary Fidelis' false claim to possess an ecclesiastical office caused him to incur an automatic sentence of excommunication.


7. Lacking a canonical appointment - No one in this sect ever received a canonical appointment, therefore, on this ground alone, any claims to possess an ecclesiastical office are false. Furthermore, pararding themselves as Catholic clergy without a canonical appointment makes them intruders.


8. Papal claims - Both Bishop Schuckardt's and Bishop Mary Fidelis' belief that they were/are popes puts them into direct conflict with Catholic doctrine.


9. Lacking the 4 Marks - They have never responded to the numerous challenges to prove that they possess the 4 Marks of the Church. That is because they cannot prove it and this for the simple reason that they do not possess them.


10. Holding to a condemned doctrine - Their claim that jurisdiction was received upon being consecrated a bishop is a direct denial of the Catholic doctrine on this subject as well as a denial of the authority of popes to rule on this matter.


11. Holding to yet another condemned doctrine - Their claim that Bishop Schuckardt received an ecclesiastical office by being accepted by a tiny handful of laity is a condemned error and smacks of Protestantism.


12. Propagating a heretical teaching - Their claim that there were no Catholic bishops left on earth at the time of Bishop Schuckardt's consecration is a denial of the Catholic doctrine of indefectibility, i.e., a denial of the doctrine that there will always be successors to the Apostles until the end of time. This is a doctrine of faith and to deny this is heresy.

Conclusion: In consideration of the above facts, it is inconceivable that the Church would recognize Bishop Mary Fidelis' sect or supply it with jurisdiction and thereby facilitate them in the commitment of their spiritual crimes. They simply have no jurisdiction.

____________________________________________