But if we were to concede that ordinary jurisdiction is necessary to participate in an Imperfect General Council, there are three possible answers to this objection, which are debated among Catholics: on the one hand, there are those who say that bishops with supplied jurisdiction can participate in such a council, since the authority of the council would come directly from Christ, not from an authority prior to or external to the assembly itself. On the other hand, there are those who, following some pre-conciliar theologians, say that bishops possess universal jurisdiction by virtue of belonging to the episcopal order in hierarchical communion with the Church. Finally, there is a position that explains that bishops receive the jurisdiction necessary to become pastors of the Church by virtue of the tacit and habitual will of the Pope (or papal legislation), which cannot destroy the pastoral office of the Church and therefore is presumed to tacitly guarantee the mission and authority necessary to continue that office.

This answer will focus on explaining this last position, as it destroys any further debate on the matter.

To properly understand this position, these essential points must be understood:

a) There have been cases verified by history in which bishops have been consecrated without papal mandate, and those bishops thus consecrated have taken possession of their pastoral office.

b) The pastoral office of traditionalist bishops is not that of a pre-existing diocese, but that does not imply that it is null and void: dioceses are an institution of ecclesiastical law, and therefore mutable; they are not a requirement of divine law.

a) There have been cases verified by history in which bishops have been consecrated without papal mandate, and those bishops thus consecrated have taken possession of their pastoral office.

In addition to the well-known fact that the canonical institution of bishops by the Pope is an ecclesiastical law that dates back (at least universally) to the reforms made by St. Gregory VII, the truth is that there has been a case very similar to those carried out in our times by Archbishops Thuc, Lefebvre and a few others. We refer to the case of St. Eusebius of Samosata, who appointed and consecrated parish priests and titular bishops of various dioceses that were being persecuted by the Arians. St. Eusebius performed this action without having any specific jurisdiction over those dioceses, and yet, far from having performed a schismatic act, it was a measure greatly praised by all Catholics, who owe to St. Eusebius the preservation of various dioceses. We can present the account of Father Fleury (prior of Argenteuil and confessor to the king, in his Ecclesiastical History), who tells us the following about Saint Eusebius:

“St. Eusebius of Samosata, being returned from his banishment, did likewise establish bishops in many places, whether by the authority he had acquired by his age, his virtue, and his sufferings for the faith; or that these ordinations were imputed to him, which he had procured from such as had power to bestow them. He placed therefore at Barhaea, Acatius, a celebrated man at that time, who had been eminent in the monastic way of life under Asterius, who was disciple of St. Julian Sabas, and continued the same practice of virtue during his episcopacy, which he held fifty-eight years. His doors were always open to everybody, so that he could be spoken with at any hour, even during his meals, and in the night; for he permitted his sleep to be broken, so little did he fear to have witnesses of his most secret actions. St. Eusebius likewise appointed Theodotus, famous in the ascetic life, bishop of Hierapolis, Eusebius of Chalcis, and Isidore of Cyrus, both men of great zeal and singular merit: at Edessa he placed St. Eulogius, who had been banished into Egypt; for St. Barse was dead some time before. Eulogius made Protogenes, companion of his labours and his exiles, a bishop, and settled him at Carrhae to establish religion there. The last place where St. Eusebius of Samosata constituted a bishop was Dolicha, a little city of Syria, infected with Arianism. He was willing therefore to make Maris bishop thereof, a man of merit and great virtue. But as he himself entered into the city, an Arian woman threw a tile at him from the roof of her house, which broke his skull, of which he died soon after. But before his death, he caused them who were present to swear they would not prosecute this woman; such was the end of St. Eusebius of Samosata. The Church places him among the martyrs, and honours his memory on the twenty-first of June. His nephew Antiochus succeeded him, who had followed him into Thrace during his exile, and who had been banished himself into Armenia.” [9]

Father Montrouzier, explaining this fact in theological and canonical terms, offers the following reflection:

“History recounts, with praise, the example of Saint Eusebius, Bishop of Samosata, who, during the Arian persecution, travelled around the Churches to provide them with faithful priests and pastors (see the following paragraph). But to praise this trait and others like it, it is not necessary to go back to a supposed concession that never existed. Suffice it to say that, by virtue of the charity that unites all members of the Church, bishops owe each other mutual assistance, for which they can rightly presume the consent of the Roman Pontiff, in cases of unforeseen necessity, because it seems clear to us that apostolic vicars whose days are thus threatened can and must quickly consecrate at least one bishop in order to contribute effectively to the preservation of Christianity. But by what right will they act? Will it be by virtue of the universal jurisdiction conferred for extreme cases? No. They will base themselves solely on the presumed consent of the Roman Pontiff, whose intentions they interpret as wise men.” [10]

This explanation given by Fr. Montrouzier is very relevant to our current situation. It is clear that the bishops who remained faithful in a time of great crisis in history had to continue the mission of the Church, and it is clear that this continuity is the presumed consent of every legitimate pope. Therefore, it is clear that what is said about St. Eusebius can be said of Archbishops Thuc, Lefebvre and a few others, and of those who continue their mission today.
 

b) The pastoral office of dioceses is not divine law, but rather an evolution of ecclesiastical law, and therefore mutable.

This point is perhaps the most basic and obvious. It is a well-known fact that dioceses have often been created, some have been expanded, others have been abolished, etc. In other words, it is a purely accidental element of the Church that can be adapted and modified by circumstances. It is clear that in the situation we find ourselves in, it can be legitimately assumed that papal legislation tacitly grants the necessary modifications for the pastoral office to be effective.

Furthermore, it is important to note that there has not always been a specific territorial delimitation in the Church.

In the article on dioceses, the Catholic Encyclopedia offers the following information:

“It is impossible to determine what rules were followed in the early Church to limit the territory over which each bishop exercised his authority...” [11]

“The exact limitations of episcopal territory could not have aroused much interest in the early days of Christianity, as it would have been impracticable.” [12]

Therefore, objections regarding the office over which bishops exercise their authority, in the current context, seem irrelevant to us. The fact is that traditionalist bishops govern and teach certain particular flocks in a regular and stable manner; they are not vague or purely sacramental bishops, as is often falsely insinuated. We often see chapels, seminaries, oratories, and missions being built, abjurations of error being made, etc. In other words, all acts that belong to the legal sphere of external jurisdiction, which cannot be explained simply by appealing to a jurisdiction supplied on a case-by-case basis, since we are talking about acts that are performed in a stable and habitual manner. 

What we mean by this is that the pastoral office of traditionalist bishops is a clear and evident fact that cannot be seriously denied by anyone who has even a minimal knowledge of the work of the traditionalist clergy.

All these acts are always performed in a stable manner with the consent of a bishop, without which it would be impossible to carry out such actions. That is why we say that the offices continue to belong properly to them.
 

Conclusion

Monsignor Van Noort offers an important principle in this regard:

“It is one thing to change the constitution of the Church; it is another thing entirely to provide for extraordinary circumstances in an extraordinary way.” [13]

At no point here is there any talk of introducing changes to the constitution of the Church: there is no question that the origin of ecclesiastical jurisdiction derives from the Supreme Pontiff. But, to be specific, it is also necessary to remember that jurisdiction is received by the will of the Pope, not necessarily by a written mandate. In extraordinary circumstances of necessity, the present hierarchy can presume the will of the Pope, since the intrinsic duty of every canonically instituted bishop is to ensure the expansion and continuity of the Church, with all its necessary attributes and faculties.

Call it ordinary jurisdiction, habitual jurisdiction, or whatever name you wish. The point is that the necessary jurisdiction that constitutes traditionalist bishops as the legitimate pastors of the Church continues to exist today, which explains why they must be considered as members of the imperfect council by divine right.