Trad Answers

Reply to @FrLavery In our discussion on the nature of the Church, you asked the following two questions: 1) What is "visibility" as explained by the theologians. 2) What things must exist at all times and in what way, also according to theologians, as essential to this visibility? For example, clearly a living Pope is not, or else, as Protestants have attempted to argue, the Church would have lost her visibility every time a Pope has died. In reply to the first question, the Chuch is both materially and formally visibible. The material visibility is the object of our senses (i.e., what we see); formal visibility is the object of our intellect (what we know). When we say the Church is formally visible, we mean she is *recognizable* (can be known) as the true Church founded by Christ. Fr. Devine explains this distinctin in his book, The Creed Explained (1897): “Material visibility is that which we see in a thing, when we attend only to its corporeal aspect. In this sense a man, as to his body, is visible. Formal visibility is when the external signs, or that which is seen by the eye, conveys to the mind the invisible or interior qualities of a thing.” An organization can be materially visible as a society, and even formally visible as a religious society/organization. But only the Catholic Church can be formally visible as the true Church founded by Christ. Again from Fr. Devine: “A Society is said to be visible in a material sense, when it is made up of men assembled together in a congregation, without attending to the object or ends that binds them together in one body. … The formal visibility of a society is that by which we regard it, not merely as an assembly of men, but an assembly of men united together for some specific object …. When we speak of the visibility of the Church, we have to understand that it is not only visible in the material sense, that is, a society of men who are visible to their fellow-creatures, but in a formal sense, that is, that she can be seen as the society of the faithful, and that she manifests conspicuously the characters of her divinity. … The Church is visible in this two-fold sense.” (Ibid) What makes the Church formally visible as the true Church founded by Christ are the four marks; and of the four marks, the one that most clearly identifies her as the true Church is the mark of Apostolicity, specifically, apostolicity of government. In his book, The Church of Christ, Fr. Berry wrote the following about the visible character of the Church: “When we say that the Church of Christ is visible, we mean, primarily, that it is a society of men with external rites and ceremonies and all the external machinery of government by which it can easily be recognized as a true society. But we further maintain that the Church of Christ also has certain marks by which it may be recognized as the one true Church founded by Christ when He commissioned the apostles to convert all nations. In other words, we maintain that the Church of Christ is formally visible, not only as a society known as a Christian Church, but also as the one true Church of Christ.” He continies: “The Church of Christ is formally visible, not only as a Church, but also as the true Church of Christ. This is an article of faith, having been defined by the [First] Vatican Council in the following words: ‘God established a Church through His only begotten Son, and endowed it with manifest marks [material visibility] of its institution, that it might be known by all [formal visibility] as the guardian and teacher of the revealed word.’ This is a clear and comprehensive definition of formal visibility. The Church has certain evident marks by which it can be recognized as the true Church of Christ, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word.” He continues: “The thesis contains two propositions: (a) the Church is an external society that can be recognized as such by all, - and it's formally visible as a religious society or Church; (b) This society has certain marks by which it may be distinguished from all other churches and recognized as the true Church, - it is formally visible as the true Church. … it has been amply proved that Christ established His Church under the form of an external visible society." (Church of Christ pp. 39-40). So, it is the four marks that renders the Church formally visible as the true Church. Now, while all four marks are interrelated in such a way that if one is missing, none exist, it is nevertheless true that, as I mentioned above, the mark of apostolicity is the one that most clearly identifies the Catholic Church as the true Church, as the the Catholic Encyclopedia explains: “Apostolicity is the mark by which the Church of today is recognized as identical with the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles. It is of great importance because it is the surest indication of the true Church of Christ, it is most easily examined, and it virtually contains the other three marks, namely, Unity, Sanctity, and Catholicity.” (1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. I, p. 648, Apostolicity.) The reason the mark of Apostolicity clearly identifies the Catholic Church - the local Church of Rome and the diocese throughout the world in union with it - is because it alone is ruled by a body of bishops (the episcopal college) that is numerically one moral body with the Apostolic College that was established and sent by Christ. Put differently, only the Catholic Church is governed by legitimate successors of the Apostles. Question 2: What is required for the Church to remain formally visible. With respect to the mark of Apostoicity, what is required is legitimate successors of the Apostles, who form one juridical person with the apostolic college established by Chist. What is a legitimate successor of the Apostles? A legitimate successor of the Apostles is either 1) a member of the Episcopal College (body of bishops in union with the Pope), or 2) (since the episcopal college doesn't exist when there is no pope - during a papal interregnum), a bishop with title and ordinary episcopal jurisdiction over an Apostolic or Episcopal See remains a legitimate successor of the Apostles. During a papal interregnum, the bishops who received their jurisdiction from the previous pope retain it. Once a bishop is legitimately appointed (according to ecclesiastical law), he holds his authority by divine law, and therefore retains it when the one who legitimately appointed him dies. Bishops with the authority/jurisdiction to teach, govern and sactify is the formal aspect of apostolic succession, and formal apostolic succession is required for the mark of Apostolicity; and since Bishops receive their jurisdiction from the Pope - "and only from the Pope" (Pius XII) - the only body of bishops that can (possibly) have formal apostolic succession is the body of Bishops who were appointed to a legitimately established episcopal see (or canonical equivalent) by a pope. Needless to say, there is only one Church - one visible, hierarchical society - that even claims to be ruled by a body of bishops who were appointed - and received their jurisdiction - by a pope. In Christ's Church (1920), Van Noort explains that "Formal apostolic succession" is a perpetual and permanent reality in the Church: “Proposition: It was Christ’s will that the sacred ruling power which had begun in the apostolic college should continue forever. This proposition is concerned with the same threefold power which we have proved to have been given to the apostles [i.e., to teach, govern and sanctify]. It asserts that this power was granted by Christ with the following stipulation: that it be handed on to an endless line of successors. We are not concerned at the moment with the subordinate co-workers of the apostles. The only point to be proven here is that it 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 the threefold power [authority] 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).” In the following quote, Fr. Berry explains that no bishops can be a legitimate successor of the Apostles (have formal apostolic succession) unless he receive jurisdictio from the Pope. Fr Berry: "Jurisdiction is authority to govern and must be transmitted in the Church … there can be no legitimate successor in the Church of Christ, who has not received jurisdiction either directly or indirectly from her supreme authority. But as will be proven elsewhere, the supreme authority in the Church of Christ was committed to St. Peter and his lawful successors, the bishops of Rome.” (The Church of Christ, pp. 78-79) Now, since the only Church that even claims to be rule by a body of bishops who were appointed to a legitimately established episcopal see (or canonical equivalent) by a Pope, are the Bishops of the visible society consisting of the local Church of Rome and the diocese throughout the world in union with it, that Church, which you call the Conciliar Church, it is the only one that *can* (possibly) possess the mark of Apostolicity. Hence, it is the only Church that can be the true Church. The "Conciliar Church" is also the only Church that has a body of bishops (the episcopal college) that is numerically one and the same juridical person with the Apostolic College, which is divinely established office - part of the Church's Divine Constitution - that, after personally establishing, Christ promised to remain with "all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Mt. 28:19-20) The Relation between Apostolicity of Membership (or "Origin") and Apostolicity of Government I'm going to end with two quotes: one from Van Noort that shows the relation between apostolicity of government and apostolicity of membership (sometimes call apostolicity of "origin") and explains how the Church - a visible, hierarchical society - remains numerically one and the same moral body throughout the centuries; the second quote, from Cardinal Billot, further elaborates on the mark of Apostolicity. The following is taken from Van Noort's book, Christ's Church (1920), pages 151-155: "Apostolicity of Government – or mission - means the Church is always ruled by pastors who form one same juridical person with the apostles. In other words, it is always ruled by pastors who are the apostles’ legitimate successors. "It has already been proved that Christ Himself founded a living organization, a visible Church. Granted that fact, it should be obvious that an essential part of that Church’s structure is apostolicity of government. For on no one but the apostolic college, under the headship of Peter, did Christ confer the power of teaching, sanctifying and ruling the faithful until the end of the world. This triple power, therefore, necessarily belongs, and can only belong, to those who form one moral person with the apostles: their legitimate successors. "It has already been established (see no. 34) that bishops succeeded to the position in the Church originally filled by the apostle But as was pointed out. this succession does not mean that a particular bishop succeeds to the job of a particular apostle - say that the bishop of Bridgeport has taken over the job of St Bartholomew. Rather, it means that the college of bishops, viewed collectively, succeeded the apostolic college, viewed collectively. ... “Apostolicity of membership means that the Church in any given age is and remains numerically the same society as that planted by the apostles. (…) A moral body, despite the fact that it constantly undergoes change and renovation in its personnel, remains numerically the same moral body so long as it retains the same social structure and the same authority. This should be clear from the fact that corporations like General Motors, or RCA Victor, or nations like the United States, France, or Switzerland, remain the same corporate or political entities, and are represented before national or international tribunals as the same moral body even though there is vast fluctuation in their personnel.” (Van Noort, Christ's Church, pp. 151-152-154-155) In the next quote, taken from his celebrated book, De Ecclesia Christi, Cardinal Billot explains Apostolicity - the visible continuity of the Church - was considered by the Fathers as the principle mark (or note) of the true Church, and the one they most often appealed to against the heretics of their day: Billot, explanation of Apostolicity: “The true Church of Christ is essentially apostolic, inasmuch as it retains perforce until the end of time visible continuity with that primitive Church which the apostles founded. And because this sort of continuity is so proper to her that it cannot be had in common with any false sect, it has the force and figure of a positive Note (i.e., mark), and indeed of that principle Note which the Fathers used the most. This Note, moreover, shines forth so much the more splendidly in the Roman communion, as it is manifestly shown to be lacking in all others. “It moves us greatly,” St. Augustine said, “that our Lord, whom it would be sacrilegious and impious to disbelieve, in the last words that he spoke on earth, left the primitive Church his last and most salutary instructions. For, having said these things, he soon ascended into heaven. He wished to fortify our ears in advance against those who he predicted would rise up in the times to come and say, Behold, here is Christ; behold, he is there [Mt. 24:23]. He warned us not to believe such people…” (…) To these last words of our Savior [i.e., his prediction that false Christs and prophets will arise] belong all those things which we are told He said during those forty days when ‘he showed himself living after his Passion, appearing to them and speaking of the kingdom of God.’ To these words especially belong those which Matthew commemorates at the conclusion of his Gospel, where Jesus, having returned to life, says to the eleven: All power is given me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them…, behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. And in these words He spoke unambiguously about the true and genuine Church, clearly indicating that until the end of time she would retain visible continuity, without any rupture or interpolation, with the Church that would soon be begun by his Apostles. (…) “Indeed, the Church with which He promised that he would remain, and which for this reason is said to be the true Church of Christ, was to see no end in this world, until she should see the end of this world. (…) Moreover, this sort of continuity must be taken in the strict sense, as excluding the possibility of any rupture or interpolation whatsoever. For, by saying, ‘I am with you all days,’ he precludes any interruption at all, no matter how slight, even of one day or one instant; he has left no gap for innovators to legitimize the founding of their sects. Again, this continuity is visible, both because it begins with visible, designated individuals, and also because it is established among men and for the sake of men, who can hardly judge the continuity of a society except in the way that they judge the continuity of a river, whose successive parts are visibly connected; finally, it is visible because it must be in agreement with the nature of the Church herself, which, as we have demonstrated above (Question 1, Thesis II), is both materially and formally visible[5] by the institution of Christ. Finally, this visible continuity carries with itself all the properties of the true Church, since with this continuity comes the assistance of Christ. The assistance of Christ means absolute indefectibility, and cannot belong to any false Church, as is evident from the terms themselves. Therefore, from first to last, the apostolicity here set forth constitutes a positive Note par excellence. (…) Moreover, among the other positive Notes of the Church, this continuity with the apostles has always held a certain primacy in the common usage of the Fathers, for no other Note is more obvious, and no other betrays its presence or absence by facts that are more material and, so to speak, tangible. Succession in the Church consists in the conservation of a numerically identical social body that subsists at all times, so that no fraud could be suspected in the transmission of its name.” (Billot, Tractus De Ecclesia Christi, 1927, Question VI, on Apostolicity, Thesis VII).

Reply to @FrLavery In our discussion on the nature of the Church, you asked the following two questions: 1) What is "visibility" as explained by the theologians. 2) What things must exist at all times and in what way, also according to theologians, as essential to this visibility? For example, clearly a living Pope is not, or else, as Protestants have attempted to argue, the Church would have lost her visibility every time a Pope has died. In reply to the first question, the Chuch is both materially and formally visibible. The material visibility is the object of our senses (i.e., what we see); formal visibility is the object of our intellect (what we know). When we say the Church is formally visible, we mean she is *recognizable* (can be known) as the true Church founded by Christ. Fr. Devine explains this distinctin in his book, The Creed Explained (1897): “Material visibility is that which we see in a thing, when we attend only to its corporeal aspect. In this sense a man, as to his body, is visible. Formal visibility is when the external signs, or that which is seen by the eye, conveys to the mind the invisible or interior qualities of a thing.” An organization can be materially visible as a society, and even formally visible as a religious society/organization. But only the Catholic Church can be formally visible as the true Church founded by Christ. Again from Fr. Devine: “A Society is said to be visible in a material sense, when it is made up of men assembled together in a congregation, without attending to the object or ends that binds them together in one body. … The formal visibility of a society is that by which we regard it, not merely as an assembly of men, but an assembly of men united together for some specific object …. When we speak of the visibility of the Church, we have to understand that it is not only visible in the material sense, that is, a society of men who are visible to their fellow-creatures, but in a formal sense, that is, that she can be seen as the society of the faithful, and that she manifests conspicuously the characters of her divinity. … The Church is visible in this two-fold sense.” (Ibid) What makes the Church formally visible as the true Church founded by Christ are the four marks; and of the four marks, the one that most clearly identifies her as the true Church is the mark of Apostolicity, specifically, apostolicity of government. In his book, The Church of Christ, Fr. Berry wrote the following about the visible character of the Church: “When we say that the Church of Christ is visible, we mean, primarily, that it is a society of men with external rites and ceremonies and all the external machinery of government by which it can easily be recognized as a true society. But we further maintain that the Church of Christ also has certain marks by which it may be recognized as the one true Church founded by Christ when He commissioned the apostles to convert all nations. In other words, we maintain that the Church of Christ is formally visible, not only as a society known as a Christian Church, but also as the one true Church of Christ.” He continies: “The Church of Christ is formally visible, not only as a Church, but also as the true Church of Christ. This is an article of faith, having been defined by the [First] Vatican Council in the following words: ‘God established a Church through His only begotten Son, and endowed it with manifest marks [material visibility] of its institution, that it might be known by all [formal visibility] as the guardian and teacher of the revealed word.’ This is a clear and comprehensive definition of formal visibility. The Church has certain evident marks by which it can be recognized as the true Church of Christ, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word.” He continues: “The thesis contains two propositions: (a) the Church is an external society that can be recognized as such by all, - and it's formally visible as a religious society or Church; (b) This society has certain marks by which it may be distinguished from all other churches and recognized as the true Church, - it is formally visible as the true Church. … it has been amply proved that Christ established His Church under the form of an external visible society." (Church of Christ pp. 39-40). So, it is the four marks that renders the Church formally visible as the true Church. Now, while all four marks are interrelated in such a way that if one is missing, none exist, it is nevertheless true that, as I mentioned above, the mark of apostolicity is the one that most clearly identifies the Catholic Church as the true Church, as the the Catholic Encyclopedia explains: “Apostolicity is the mark by which the Church of today is recognized as identical with the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles. It is of great importance because it is the surest indication of the true Church of Christ, it is most easily examined, and it virtually contains the other three marks, namely, Unity, Sanctity, and Catholicity.” (1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. I, p. 648, Apostolicity.) The reason the mark of Apostolicity clearly identifies the Catholic Church - the local Church of Rome and the diocese throughout the world in union with it - is because it alone is ruled by a body of bishops (the episcopal college) that is numerically one moral body with the Apostolic College that was established and sent by Christ. Put differently, only the Catholic Church is governed by legitimate successors of the Apostles. Question 2: What is required for the Church to remain formally visible. With respect to the mark of Apostoicity, what is required is legitimate successors of the Apostles, who form one juridical person with the apostolic college established by Chist. What is a legitimate successor of the Apostles? A legitimate successor of the Apostles is either 1) a member of the Episcopal College (body of bishops in union with the Pope), or 2) (since the episcopal college doesn't exist when there is no pope - during a papal interregnum), a bishop with title and ordinary episcopal jurisdiction over an Apostolic or Episcopal See remains a legitimate successor of the Apostles. During a papal interregnum, the bishops who received their jurisdiction from the previous pope retain it. Once a bishop is legitimately appointed (according to ecclesiastical law), he holds his authority by divine law, and therefore retains it when the one who legitimately appointed him dies. Bishops with the authority/jurisdiction to teach, govern and sactify is the formal aspect of apostolic succession, and formal apostolic succession is required for the mark of Apostolicity; and since Bishops receive their jurisdiction from the Pope - "and only from the Pope" (Pius XII) - the only body of bishops that can (possibly) have formal apostolic succession is the body of Bishops who were appointed to a legitimately established episcopal see (or canonical equivalent) by a pope. Needless to say, there is only one Church - one visible, hierarchical society - that even claims to be ruled by a body of bishops who were appointed - and received their jurisdiction - by a pope. In Christ's Church (1920), Van Noort explains that "Formal apostolic succession" is a perpetual and permanent reality in the Church: “Proposition: It was Christ’s will that the sacred ruling power which had begun in the apostolic college should continue forever. This proposition is concerned with the same threefold power which we have proved to have been given to the apostles [i.e., to teach, govern and sanctify]. It asserts that this power was granted by Christ with the following stipulation: that it be handed on to an endless line of successors. We are not concerned at the moment with the subordinate co-workers of the apostles. The only point to be proven here is that it 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 the threefold power [authority] 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).” In the following quote, Fr. Berry explains that no bishops can be a legitimate successor of the Apostles (have formal apostolic succession) unless he receive jurisdictio from the Pope. Fr Berry: "Jurisdiction is authority to govern and must be transmitted in the Church … there can be no legitimate successor in the Church of Christ, who has not received jurisdiction either directly or indirectly from her supreme authority. But as will be proven elsewhere, the supreme authority in the Church of Christ was committed to St. Peter and his lawful successors, the bishops of Rome.” (The Church of Christ, pp. 78-79) Now, since the only Church that even claims to be rule by a body of bishops who were appointed to a legitimately established episcopal see (or canonical equivalent) by a Pope, are the Bishops of the visible society consisting of the local Church of Rome and the diocese throughout the world in union with it, that Church, which you call the Conciliar Church, it is the only one that *can* (possibly) possess the mark of Apostolicity. Hence, it is the only Church that can be the true Church. The "Conciliar Church" is also the only Church that has a body of bishops (the episcopal college) that is numerically one and the same juridical person with the Apostolic College, which is divinely established office - part of the Church's Divine Constitution - that, after personally establishing, Christ promised to remain with "all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Mt. 28:19-20) The Relation between Apostolicity of Membership (or "Origin") and Apostolicity of Government I'm going to end with two quotes: one from Van Noort that shows the relation between apostolicity of government and apostolicity of membership (sometimes call apostolicity of "origin") and explains how the Church - a visible, hierarchical society - remains numerically one and the same moral body throughout the centuries; the second quote, from Cardinal Billot, further elaborates on the mark of Apostolicity. The following is taken from Van Noort's book, Christ's Church (1920), pages 151-155: "Apostolicity of Government – or mission - means the Church is always ruled by pastors who form one same juridical person with the apostles. In other words, it is always ruled by pastors who are the apostles’ legitimate successors. "It has already been proved that Christ Himself founded a living organization, a visible Church. Granted that fact, it should be obvious that an essential part of that Church’s structure is apostolicity of government. For on no one but the apostolic college, under the headship of Peter, did Christ confer the power of teaching, sanctifying and ruling the faithful until the end of the world. This triple power, therefore, necessarily belongs, and can only belong, to those who form one moral person with the apostles: their legitimate successors. "It has already been established (see no. 34) that bishops succeeded to the position in the Church originally filled by the apostle But as was pointed out. this succession does not mean that a particular bishop succeeds to the job of a particular apostle - say that the bishop of Bridgeport has taken over the job of St Bartholomew. Rather, it means that the college of bishops, viewed collectively, succeeded the apostolic college, viewed collectively. ... “Apostolicity of membership means that the Church in any given age is and remains numerically the same society as that planted by the apostles. (…) A moral body, despite the fact that it constantly undergoes change and renovation in its personnel, remains numerically the same moral body so long as it retains the same social structure and the same authority. This should be clear from the fact that corporations like General Motors, or RCA Victor, or nations like the United States, France, or Switzerland, remain the same corporate or political entities, and are represented before national or international tribunals as the same moral body even though there is vast fluctuation in their personnel.” (Van Noort, Christ's Church, pp. 151-152-154-155) In the next quote, taken from his celebrated book, De Ecclesia Christi, Cardinal Billot explains Apostolicity - the visible continuity of the Church - was considered by the Fathers as the principle mark (or note) of the true Church, and the one they most often appealed to against the heretics of their day: Billot, explanation of Apostolicity: “The true Church of Christ is essentially apostolic, inasmuch as it retains perforce until the end of time visible continuity with that primitive Church which the apostles founded. And because this sort of continuity is so proper to her that it cannot be had in common with any false sect, it has the force and figure of a positive Note (i.e., mark), and indeed of that principle Note which the Fathers used the most. This Note, moreover, shines forth so much the more splendidly in the Roman communion, as it is manifestly shown to be lacking in all others. “It moves us greatly,” St. Augustine said, “that our Lord, whom it would be sacrilegious and impious to disbelieve, in the last words that he spoke on earth, left the primitive Church his last and most salutary instructions. For, having said these things, he soon ascended into heaven. He wished to fortify our ears in advance against those who he predicted would rise up in the times to come and say, Behold, here is Christ; behold, he is there [Mt. 24:23]. He warned us not to believe such people…” (…) To these last words of our Savior [i.e., his prediction that false Christs and prophets will arise] belong all those things which we are told He said during those forty days when ‘he showed himself living after his Passion, appearing to them and speaking of the kingdom of God.’ To these words especially belong those which Matthew commemorates at the conclusion of his Gospel, where Jesus, having returned to life, says to the eleven: All power is given me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them…, behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. And in these words He spoke unambiguously about the true and genuine Church, clearly indicating that until the end of time she would retain visible continuity, without any rupture or interpolation, with the Church that would soon be begun by his Apostles. (…) “Indeed, the Church with which He promised that he would remain, and which for this reason is said to be the true Church of Christ, was to see no end in this world, until she should see the end of this world. (…) Moreover, this sort of continuity must be taken in the strict sense, as excluding the possibility of any rupture or interpolation whatsoever. For, by saying, ‘I am with you all days,’ he precludes any interruption at all, no matter how slight, even of one day or one instant; he has left no gap for innovators to legitimize the founding of their sects. Again, this continuity is visible, both because it begins with visible, designated individuals, and also because it is established among men and for the sake of men, who can hardly judge the continuity of a society except in the way that they judge the continuity of a river, whose successive parts are visibly connected; finally, it is visible because it must be in agreement with the nature of the Church herself, which, as we have demonstrated above (Question 1, Thesis II), is both materially and formally visible[5] by the institution of Christ. Finally, this visible continuity carries with itself all the properties of the true Church, since with this continuity comes the assistance of Christ. The assistance of Christ means absolute indefectibility, and cannot belong to any false Church, as is evident from the terms themselves. Therefore, from first to last, the apostolicity here set forth constitutes a positive Note par excellence. (…) Moreover, among the other positive Notes of the Church, this continuity with the apostles has always held a certain primacy in the common usage of the Fathers, for no other Note is more obvious, and no other betrays its presence or absence by facts that are more material and, so to speak, tangible. Succession in the Church consists in the conservation of a numerically identical social body that subsists at all times, so that no fraud could be suspected in the transmission of its name.” (Billot, Tractus De Ecclesia Christi, 1927, Question VI, on Apostolicity, Thesis VII).

Is Collegiality a Novelty of Vatican II or the Traditional Teaching on the Episcopal College? trueorfalsepope.com/p/colleg… This article was slightly revised and greatly expanded on 11/26.

Replying to @X_SedeQC One of the errors of Archbishop Marcell Lefebvre, and everyone formed in one of his seminaries (SSPX, Independent, Sedevacantist, Sedeprivationist, Resistance, Resistance to the Resistance, etc.) is equating supreme authority and the Primacy, and then falsely accusing Lumen Gentium (Vatican II) of error for allegedlyy contradicting Pastor Aeternus (Vatican I), since the former teaches two subjects of *supreme authority* (the pope and the body of bishops in union with the pope), whilethe latter teaches that the Pope alone holds the *Primacy.* For example, here is what the Sedeprivationist heretic, Bp. Donald Sanborn - former rector of the SSPX seminary in Armada, MI, teaches: “Vatican II changed the constitution of the Catholic Church. …  It says that the subject, or possessor of the supreme power of the Church, is the college of bishops with Peter as its head. … Christ did not confide to the college of bishops the supreme authority of the Church. … Lumen Gentium founded a new religion. … If we are to maintain the faith in this time, we must resist these changes of Vatican II.” (Bp. Donald Sanborn) Here is another quote found in numerous Sedevacantist articles. “The fourth heresy is that of collegiality which alters the monarchical constitution of the Catholic Church, with which she was endowed by the Divine Savior. The doctrine of Vatican II, confirmed by the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which states that the subject (the possessor) of the supreme authority of the Church is the college of bishops together with the pope, is contrary to the defined doctrine of the Council of Florence and of Vatican I.” (“Rejecting the Imposter Church,” Fr. Michael Oswalt). Bishops Fellay teaches the same error: Bishop Fellay: “After having shaken the Church’s unity of Faith, the texts of the Council also disturbed the Church’s unity of government and hierarchical structure. The expression “subjectum quoque” (LG, 22) [i.e., “is also the subject”] means that the college of bishops united to the Pope as to their head is also, besides the Pope alone, the habitual and permanent subject of the supreme and universal power of jurisdiction in the Church. …  This idea of a permanent double subject holding *primacy* is, in fact, contrary to the Church’s teaching and practice, especially to the constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I (DS 3055) and Leo XIII’s encyclical Satis Cognitum.” (April 2014 - Superior General's Letter #82) Notice how Fellay refers to Lumen Gentium's teaching concerning the two subject of "supreme authority," and then, in the very next sentence, changes the word to Primacy, since Lefebvre taught his seminarians that supreme authority and the Primacy are one and the same thing. In reality, supreme authority is distinct from the Primacy, and affirming two subjects of supreme authority in no way conflicts with the teaching of Florence or Vatican I. While the Primacy includes supreme authority, the Primacy also includes at least 23 additional privileges that the Pope alone enjoys. The quotations below - all of which comes from pre-Vatican II theology manuals - confirm that there are indeed two subjects of supreme authority, just as Lumen Gentium teaches: In Ius Canonicum (1905), the esteemed canonist, Fr. Franz Xavier Wernz, teaches that “bishops together with the Roman Pontiff constitute another subject (alterum subiectum) of supreme authority in the Church, only inadequately distinct from the Roman Pontiff.” (Wernz, Ius Canonicum p. 259-60). Earlier in the same book, he writes the following in reply to the Protestant Canonist Paul Hinschius: But Hinschius confuses the true and the false, and most importantly does not consider that an Ecumenical Council and the Roman Pontiff, even after the definition of the Vatican Council, are two subjects (duplex subiectum) of supreme ecclesiastical power, not adequately but only inadequately distinct. Since this distinction is indeed only inadequate, it cannot possibly be said that there is only one subject of supreme power, whether in an ecumenical council or outside of it.” (Ius Canonicum Vol I. p 160-161) In De Religione et Ecclesia (1905), the eminent Cardinal Mazzella, who held the chair of theology at the Gregorian during the Pontificate of Leo XIII, says all of Tradition confirms that there is a double subject of supreme power: “If we compare the all the testimonies of Scripture and tradition, we find, as it were, an inadequately distinct double subject of supreme power (supremæ potestatis); that is to say, Peter alone - 'whatever thou shall bind' etc. [Mt. 16:19] and the body of Apostles with Peter - 'whatever ye shall bind' etc. – [Mt. 18:18].” (Mazzella De Religione et Ecclesia, 1905). In his manual, Christ's Church (1957), Van Noort wrote: “The special discussion of the subject of infallibility fits more conveniently into the second of this treatise. Suffice it to mention here, in anticipation of the fuller discussion, that the subject is both the body of the Church’s rulers together with their head, in other words, the Roman Catholic college of bishops, and the supreme ruler of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff.” (Van Noort. Christ's Church. p. 104) In the Church of the Word Incarnate, Cardinal Journet teaches the same: "“In other words, the power to rule the universal Church resides first of all in the Sovereign Pontiff, then in the episcopal college united with the Pontiff; and it can be exercised either singly by the Sovereign Pontiff, or jointly by the Pontiff and the episcopal college: the power of the Sovereign Pontiff singly and that of the Sovereign Pontiff united with the episcopal college constituting not two [supreme] powers adequately distinct, but one sole supreme power – considered on the one hand in the head of the Church teaching [the Pope], in whom it resides in its wholeness and as in its source, and on the other hand as at once in the head and in the body of the Church teaching, to which it is communicated and in which it finds its plenary and integral subject. ... “…the regular, permanent, collegiate power to rule the universal Church, is not solely, but certainly comprised in Jesus’ promise to all the Apostles: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven’ (Mt. 18:18).  These words had previously been addressed to Peter (Mt. 16:19).  They were addressed now to the whole apostolic college. What does that mean if not that the apostolic college was to share in Peter’s power, that it was to share with Peter in the supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church, and that this supreme jurisdiction was to be given first to Peter and to his successors, so as to devolve next on the Apostles and on their successors?”(The Church of the Word Incarnate, pp. 412, 413) The teaching of the two subjects of supreme power was also taught by Bishop Zinelli, during the relatio he delivered on Chapter III of Pastor Aeternus (Vatican I).  In reply to a Council Father who believed the entire episcopate together with the Pope possessed greater authority that the Pope alone, Bishop Zinelli, his official capacity as the spokesman for the Deputation De Fide, replied as follows: “We willingly agree that supreme and total ecclesiastical sovereignty over all the faithful resides also in ourselves [the bishops] as gathered in an ecumenical council, in ourselves, the bishops, united to their head.  Yes, this perfectly fits the Church united to the head.  The bishops gathered with their head in an ecumenical council - in which case they represent the whole Church - or dispersed, yet in union with their head  - in which case they are the Church herself - truly have supreme authority. But all the words of Christ should make everything clear. If by the fact that he promised to be with the Apostles, with Peter and his successors, and granted other such things, we can infer that this truly full and supreme power is in the Church [bishops] united with her head (second subject), by the same reason, from the fact that similar promises were made to Peter alone and to his successors, we can conclude that truly full and supreme power was given to Peter and his successors, even independently of their acting in common with the other bishops.  (…) We admit that a truly full and supreme power exists in the Supreme Pontiff as in the head (one subject) and that the same truly full and supreme power is also in the head joined to its members, that is, in the Pope with the bishops (second subject).” (Mansi, 52.1109). The SSPX and Sedevacantists maintain that if the college of bishops participates in the supreme authority, the Church would not be a monarchy, but rather a democracy or an aristocracy.  On the contrary, as Cardinal Billot explains, the supreme authority residing in the whole college does not prevent the Church from being a true monarchy, but it does make the Church's government a monarchy of a unique kind – a monarchy sui generis.  Christ established the Church this way, says Billot, as a means of manifesting and achieving that perfect unity for which He prayed for the Apostles at the Last supper.  The following is taken from Billot’s De Ecclesia Christi (1898), which, six decades later, Fr. Fenton called “the best theological treatment on the Church produced during the course of the past hundred years.” Billot: “To emphasize the unity for which he prayed for the apostles at the Last Supper, when he said, 'That as we are one, they may be one in us, that they may be perfect in one,' Christ arranged the apostolic college as a stable and perpetual institution, united to Prince Peter, to share in the supreme power. Hence the monarchy of the Church is a monarchy of its own kind (sui generis), which, while retaining without limitation the full character of a monarchy in all respects, yet has a régime of individual bishops conjoined to it (coniunctum), so that the one indivisible supreme authority may be wielded by the body of bishops united to its head. "The truth of this assertion is clear from Mt. 28-20, John 20-21, and even more clearly from Mt. 18-18, where Christ, in addressing the entire community of the apostles, said, ‘Amen I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’  These words, previously spoken to Peter alone, imply the exercise of the fullness of power, as has been explained above, Thes. 25 § 1. Therefore, just as in Peter (one subject) there was the fullness of ecclesiastical authority, so too is it in the whole college (second subject), considered collegially.” (Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, Vol. 1, 1909). Notice, the same supreme authority that resides in Peter also resides in the whole college. To prove it, Billot references Mt. 16:19 and Mt 18:18, and notes that the binding and loosing power that was given to Peter “has the same term and the same form” as that which was given to “the college.” In both cases, he says, the “power is signified in the genus of unlimited ecclesiastical power (potestatis eccleiasticae illimitata).” (Ibid.) He goes on to explain, as Carinal Journet did earlier, that the collegiate power is not the sum of the particular powers of all the bishops enjoy over their respective sees. Rather, because “the power of the college is the supreme power,” the “power of the college is adequately distinguished from the sum of the particular powers of the individual members of the college.” He then explains why, despite the entire college possessing the identical supreme authority as the Pope, the other bishops are not to be considered as equal to the Pope.  His answer shows the relation between the Primacy and the Episcopate: “One thing, therefore, remains to be said: By Christ's institution, the identical supreme power which was wholly in Peter alone, should also be in him together with the subordinate members of the Apostolic Senate, which constituted one body, one tribunal, and one plenary and fully competent subject of authority, yet in this body, considered as the depositary of supreme authority, Peter and the rest of the Apostolic College are not to be regarded as on equal terms, since the position of Peter as Head always remains intact, according to Matt. XVI, John XXI, and Luke XXII.   First, without Peter and apart from Peter there would be in the Apostolic College no supreme authority at all; for it was not to a headless body that: Christ said ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, etc.’ (Mt 18:18).  Secondly, within the Apostolic College Peter is not like the President in a Parliament, simply the first among equals; but is always the Rock of the Church, the Confirmer of his brethren, and the Pastor of both the sheep and lambs alike; he is also the one fount and reason of the supreme authority of the whole Apostolic College cohering with him. Thirdly, Peter is in no way subject to the Apostolic College, while the other Apostles are subject to the Senate of which they form a part. Lastly, the Apostolic College invested with supreme power is nothing else than the whole body of subordinate Prelates as assumed into their Head, Peter, for the unity of one governing agency, and this for the manifestation of that unity of “the whole body . . . compacted and fitly joined together by which every joint supplieth" which Christ willed should be the touchstone and everlasting miracle of His true Church.” (Billot, De Ecclesia 1,Thesis XXVII 569-572). Even though “the fullness of ecclesiastical authority” resides in “the whole college, considered collegially,” the Church is nevertheless a true monarchy in all respects, due to the divinely established privileges that the Pope alone enjoys by virtue of the Primacy. Cardinal Billot goes on to explain that the Apostolic college will be perpetuated in the episcopal college until the end.  He then declares that “the supreme authority of the whole episcopate”– which is the doctrine that the SSPX and Sedevacantist declare to be heretical - is an explicit dogma of the Catholic Faith: "Now, it is hardly necessary to demonstrate that the institution which began with the apostolic college should be perpetuated in the episcopate until the end. And, of course, all the quotations we have seen from the Gospels testify that it is undoubtedly the perennial and perpetual state of the Church. Moreover, there is nothing more explicit in the Catholic faith from the beginning than the dogma of the supreme authority (suprema auctoritate) of the whole episcopate, whether united in an ecumenical council or dispersed throughout the world.  It is concerning this collegiate authority of all the bishops together with Peter their head, that the teaching of St. Cyprian (De Unit. Eccl. n. 5) is rightly understood: ‘The episcopate is one, of which each has a share in Solidium’." (Billot, Tractus De Ecclesia, Thesis XXVII. Notice that: “the supreme authority residing in the whole episcopate,” even when the bishops “are dispersed throughout the world” is “the perennial and perpetual state of the Church.” That is the doctrine of Lumen Gentium that the SSPX, the Sedevacantist, Sedeprivationists and other heretical priest and pseudo-Bishops who claim to adhere to "Tradition" falsely accuse the Roman Catholic Church of heresy for teaching at an ecumenical  Council.

Reply to @FrLavery Since our disagreement concerns the nature of the Church - what the Church is - we should begin with ecclesiology, not with the Baltimore Catechism's teaching concerning sins against the first commandment, which is something we both agree with. Since you deny that the Roman Catholic Church consists of the local Church of Rome and the diocese throughout the world in union with it, please explain what you believe the Church itself is, and how it is formally visible.

Fr. Lavery, The Protestants also claimed the Roman Catholic Church - i.e., the local Church of Rome and the diocese throughout the world in union with it - taught a New Religion. You are just as wrong as they were. Regarding the Four Marks, the first points is that the instittional Church with Four Marks (i.e., the Roman Catholic Church as described above) also possesses the attribute of indefectibility, which guarantees, amoung other things, that it will always possess the Four Marks. Now, if that Church does not have the Four Marks today, as you mistakenly believe, it couldn't have it had them during the Papacy of Pius XII, since indefectibility guarantees that the Church with Four Marks will never lose them. The contrary is also true: if the Church did possess the Four Marks during the Pontificate of Pius XII, indefectibility guarantees that it still possesses them today. Moreover, if the Roman Catholic Church teaches a New Religion today, as you also mistakenly believe, it couldn't have been the true Church during the Pontificate of Pius XII, since indefectibility guarantes that the true Church will always teach the true religion. What this shows is that the logical conclusion of both your errors is not merely that the Roman Catholic Church is not the true Church today; but that it never was the true Church, since the true Church is indefectible.. Second point: You mistakenly believe that the Roman Catholic Church "no longer" has the Four Marks, yet you also claim to acceps Catholic theology. The problem is that, according to the Catholic theology you claim to accept, the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church that can possibly posses the Four Marks. Why? One reason is because the mark of Apostolicity requries a teaching Church - that is, a body of bishops with ordinary jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the formal aspect of Apostolic Succession, which is a part of the mark of Apostolicity. This is explained in the following article on Apostolicity, taken from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia: "*Apostolicity is the mark by which the Church of today is recognized as identical with the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles. It is of great importance because it is the surest indication of the true Church of Christ, it is most easily examined, and it virtually contains the other three marks, namely, Unity, Sanctity, and Catholicity.* Either the word "Christian" or "Apostolic", might be used to express the identity between the Church of today and the primitive Church. The term "Apostolic" is preferred because it indicates a correlation between Christ and the Apostles, showing the relation of the Church both to Christ, the founder, and to the Apostles, upon whom He founded it. "Apostle" is one sent, sent by authority of Jesus Christ to continue His Mission upon earth, especially a member of the original band of teachers known as the Twelve Apostles. Therefore the Church is called Apostolic, because it was founded by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles. ... "In explaining the concept of Apostolicity, then, special attention must be given to Apostolicity of mission, or Apostolic succession. *Apostolicity of mission means that the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth. This authoritative transmission of power [authority/jurisdiction] in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession. This Apostolic succession must be both material and formal;* the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; *the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power.* It consists in the legitimate transmission of the ministerial power conferred by Christ upon His Apostles. No one can give a power which he does not possess. Hence in tracing the mission of the Church back to the Apostles, *no lacuna can be allowed,* no new mission can arise; but the mission conferred by Christ must pass from generation to generation through an uninterrupted lawful succession. ... *Apostolicity, or Apostolic succession, then, means that the mission conferred by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles must pass from then to their legitimate successors, in an unbroken line, until the end of the world.* (1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, Apostolicity) Apostolicity requires a body of bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, and it must be morally one with that which has existed since the time of the Apostles (i.e., the Apostolic/Episcopal college). Now, ordinary jurisdiction (the formal aspect of apostolic succession) is jurisdiciton that is attached to an office - to a legitimately established episcopal or apostolic see, or a canonical equivalent. A bishop receives his jurisdiction when he is appointed to the office and, as Pius XII teaches in Mystici Corporis Christ (and other places), Bishops receive their jurisdiciton directly from the pope and only from the pope, since the Pope alone appoints bishops. Now, the only Church that even claims to have a body of bishops appointed to a legitimately established episcopal or apostolic see (or canonica equivalent), by the Pope, is the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, it is the only Church that can possibly have bishops with formal apostolic succession, and because formal apostolic succession is part of the mark of Apostolicity, it is the only Church that can possibly posses the mark of Apostolicity and hence the only Church that can possible possess the 4 marks. The Sedevacantist heretics certainly don't have them, and they never can, since they have no episcopal sees with ordinary jurisdiction attached to them (much less a pope who could appoint them if they did). The Sede bishops are all episcopus vagans, which are forbidden by the Council of Trent, which they claim to accept. To recap: If the Roman Catholic Church was the true Church in 1958, it is the true Church today, beause the true Church is indefectible. If the Roman Catholic Church is not the true Church today - which we be the case if it lacks the 4 marks and teaches a New Religion - it wasn't the true Church in 1958. The Mark of Apostolicity requires a body of bishops - numerically one morally body with that which has existed since the time of the Apostles - with ordinary jurisdiction (jurisdiction attached to an office). Bishops receive their jurisdiction from the Pope, and only from the Pope, since the Pope alone appoints bishops. Since the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church that even claims to have a body of Bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, it is the only Church that can possibly possess the mark of Apostolicity, and hence the only Church that can possibly possess the Four Marks. One final point is that the Church with Four Marks is the Church outside of which there is no savation. And you, and all of your fellow Sedevacantists, are outside of that Church - not because you are invincibly ignorant of that Church (which could excuse), but because you have all been deceived into believing it defected by morphing into a New Church that teaches a New Religion - which is EXACTLY what the Protestants claimed.

This is a perfect description of the Sedevacantist apologists. Luther had similar complaints about the laity who followed him. Luther: "Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Gospel better than I or St. Paul. They are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers." "This one will not hear of Baptism, that one denies the Sacraments, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are about as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No Yokel is so rude, but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet." "How many doctors have I made by preaching and writing? Now they say, ‘Be off with you. Go off with you. Go to the devil.’ Thus it must be. When we preach they laugh. ...when we get angry and threaten them, they mock us, snap their fingers at us and laugh in their sleeves.” "There is no detractor greater then the one who has heard a sermon or can read a chapter in German, makes a doctor of himself, and crowns his ass, convincing himself that he knows everything better than all who teach him…29" "When we have heard or learned a few things about Holy Scripture, we think we are already doctors and have swallowed the Holy Ghost, feathers and all."

Someone needs to explain to John Henry Weston that there are two powers - the Church and the State. The fact that the Church is a monarchy, and that the pope enjoys spiritual authority as its head, in no way implies that he is forbidden to cast a vote in the election of civil authorities.

In our next podcast, we will address the loss of office for heresy, and specifically the Sedevacantist error that the mortal sin of heresy (and loss of faith) causes the loss of office. If that were true, an occult heretic would be ipso facto deposed, since occult heretics are guilty of the sin of heresy. Bellarmine, who the Sedevacantists mistakenly believe supports their position, refuted this error in numerous places. For example, in De Ecclesia Militanta, he wrote: "It is certain that an occult heretic, if he be a bishop or even the supreme Pontiff, does not lose his jurisdiction, or dignity, or the title of head in the Church, until he either publicly separates himself from the Church, or, being convicted of heresy, is separated against his will.” (Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Militante, bk III, ch. X) Notice what he said. If a pope falls into formal heresy (an occult heretic is guilty of formal heresy), but has not separated himself from the Church, he will remain pope and retain his jurisdiction unless and until he is "convicted of heresy" by the Church. Bellarmine teaches the same in De Romano Pontifice, book 2, ca 30. In reply to the second opinion, he explains that a pope who falls into heresy is not ipso facto deposed by divine law. Rather, just as he is made Pope by God through the agency of men, so to is he deprived of his jurisdictio by God through the agency of men: "The second opinion is that the pope, by the very fact that he falls into heresy, even if it is only interior, is outside the Church deposed by God, for which reason he can be judged by the Church—that is, he is declared deposed by divine law—and, if he still refuses to step down, deposed de facto. This is the opinion of John de Turrecremata, Book 4, Part 2, Chapter 20. However, it does not convince me. "For jurisdiction is indeed given to the pope by God, but with the cooperation of human agency. as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, Therefore, jurisdiction is not taken away by God except through human agency. But an occult heretic (internally only; not externally occult) cannot be judged by men, nor would he relinquish his power voluntarily. Moreover, the foundation of this opinion is the claim that occult heretics are outside the Church, which we have shown at length to be false in Book 1, On the Church." (De Romano Pontifice, bk 11, cap 30) The human agency through which one is made pope are the Cardinal electors; the human agency through which he is deposed are the bishops at a council. God both confers jurisdiction on a pope, and deprives him of it, through the agency of men. That is the teaching of Bellarmine. And it is confirmed from the fact that no prelate has ever been ipso facto deposed for heresy while he remained in possession of his see. Bellarmine’s Refutation of the Sedevacantists of His Day In his book on the Marks of the Church, Bellarmine refutes the Sedevacantists of his day (the Protestants) who, like their counterparts in our day, claimed that the Pope and bishops in union with him had defected from the faith and been ipso facto deposed. How did Bellarmine refute them? Did he attempt to defend the orthodoxy of the Pope and bishops agaist their accusation? No. That would have been a useless effort, since the Protestants were convinced that they alone had the true faith. How, then, did he refute them? He did so by explaining that Catholic Bishops, who are in peacefully possess of their sees, cannot be deprived of them until they are first legitimately judged. The following is Bellarmine's reply to the Lutheran Sedevacantist, Johannes Brentius: “They [Protestants] object that Papist bishops have departed from the true faith and are no longer bishops; thus, pious ministers can rightly take up their places. “I answer Brentius' argument as follows (even if we concede that there is doubt as to who has the true faith, although we are certain that it resides with us): Catholic bishops, who have possessed their Sees peacefully for so many centuries, cannot be deprived of them unless they be legitimately judged and condemned. For, in every controversy the party that is in actual possession enjoys the benefit of the doubt. Now, it is certain that the Catholic bishops have never been condemned in a legitimate judgment. For who has condemned them, aside from the Lutherans? But they are the accusers, not the judges! For, who has made them our judges?” (Bellarmine, On the Marks of the Church, cap. viii) Catholic bishops who remain in peaceful possession of their sees cannot be deprived of them unless they are legitimately judged. Clearly, the Sedevacantists of our day do not agree with this teaching of Bellarmine. On the contrary, they agree with the Protestants, whose opinion Bellarmine refuted using an argument that equally refutes them. In his book On Councils, Bellarmine answers another objection raised by Protestants, which sheds further light on his position. The Protestants raised the following objection: “The Roman Pontiff should not convene a Council, nor preside over it; rather, he should be on the side as one of the litigants - since he is the very person being accused - and the same person should not be both judge and party [to a case].” Here is Bellarmines reply: “The third condition is unjust, because the Roman Pontiff cannot be deprived of his right to convene Councils and preside over them—a right he has held for 1,500 years—unless he is first convicted by a legitimate judgement, and not the Supreme Pontiff. As for the argument that the same person cannot be both judge and party, I maintain that this applies to private individuals, not to a supreme ruler; for a supreme ruler, as long as it has not been declared or legitimately judged to have fallen from his position, remains the supreme judge, even when he himself is a party to a dispute.” As we see, according to Bellarmine a pope (one accused of heresy) remains pope and retains the authority to convoke and reside over a council, unless he has bee legitimately judged and convicted of heresy and is no longer pope. Bellarmine goes on to explain who could convict a pope of heresy: “It should also be noted that the Pontiff is not the sole judge in a Council; rather, he has many colleagues—namely, all the Bishops. If they were able to convict him of heresy, they would also have the authority to judge and depose him, even against his will. Therefore, heretics have no grounds for complaint if the Roman Pontiff presided over a Council before he had been condemned.” (De concilii,lib. 1, cap xxi) It is the bishops at a council who have the authority to convict a pope of heresy. But how could they then depose the pope, which is a coercive act, when the pope is not subject to any coercive power on earth? The reason they can do so is because, according to Bellarmine’s opinion, the pope would be deprived of his jurisdiction – and ceased to be Pope - the moment they convicted him. So, the pope who possessed the authority to convoke the council, is deprived of his authority (by God) during the council, through the agency of men. How can this be reconciled with Bellarmine’s teaching that a "manifest heretic" is ipso facto deposed? As we saw above, Bellarmine taught that one of two things is required for a heretical pope (an occult heretic) to be deprived of his pontifical dignity, jurisdiction, and his title as head of the Church. One is being convicted of heresy by the Church. The other is openly separating himself from the Church (falling into schism). To defend his opinion that a manifest heretic being ipso facto deposed, Bellarmine quoted St. Cyprian's teaching concerning Novatian. Novation didn’t merely err in doctrine; he was a schismatic, who had been illicitly consecrated by three intoxicated bishop (per Pope Cornelius), before declaring himself Pope. Novation was an antipope who was never a member of the episcopal college. What Cyprian says in the quote that Bellarmine referenced to support his own position, is that, even if Novation had been ordained legally before he left the Church, he could not hold the episcopal. Why? Because he was separate from the body of bishops: In Cyprian's own words: "He [Novatian] could not hold the episcopate, even if he had been made a bishop before, since he has cut himself off from the body of his fellow bishops and from the unity of the Church; since the apostle admonishes us to mutually sustain one another, and not withdraw from the unity which God has appointed, saying, 'Bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.' (Ephesians 4:2-3). He who observes neither unity of spirit nor the concord of peace, but severs himself from the bonds of the Church, and from the fellowship of her priests, cannot have episcopal power or honor, since he has refused to maintain either the unity or the peace of the episcopate.” (Cyprian) The reason Cyprian said Novation could not possess the episcopate is because he was separated from unity with the body of bishops. So, the example Bellarmine used to support his position that manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed, wasn’t someone who merely erred in doctrine; it was a heretic who was also a schismatic, which is what the Fathers of the Church almost always mean when they speak of heretics. A heretic was one who belonged to a heretical sect (a heretic who was also a schismatic). St. Thomas confirms this when he says, “whoever is a heretic is also a schismatic, but not conversely." One can be a schismatic without being a heretic, but they can’t be a heretic without being a schismatic. It is heretics, understood in this sense, who are separated from the Church. This is clear from the following taken from the Douay Catechism of 1649: “Question. Why may not Heretics and Schismatics justly claim to be in the Unity of the Church and Members of Christ's body? “Answer. Because Catholics can show to each sect of Heretics and Schismatics the time they began; the date of their separation from the Church: the name of the person or persons of their sect who first separated themselves, and the cause of their condemnation; whilst the Catholic Church always was from the beginning. (Douay Catechism). Heretics are those who belong to a heretical sect, or those who have been convicted of heresy by the Church. A heretic in the ecclesiastical forum Another way to understand this is by distinguishing those who are guilty of the sin of heresy (in the internal forum), and those who are legally recognized by the Church (in the ecclesiastical forum) as heretics. A person can certainly be guilty of the sin of heresy without being in schism or have been juridically declared a heretic; but, if they have been lawfully received into the Church, they are not considered to be heretics by the Church (in the ecclesiastical forum), unless they leave the Church or are juridically declared heretics. And if they are not deemed heretics by the Church, they can hold office in the Church, even if they are interiorly guilty of the sin of heresy.

How did we reach the point where a non-Catholic sect that denies collegiality, which was described as an evident dogma by Cardinal Billot (Tractus de Ecclesia Christi 1898), who conflates supreme authortity with the Primacy and the "munera" of teaching and governing with actual jurisdiction (in actus secundo), who believes the episcopal college is something that the pope "brings into existence" during a council; who believes "the intention to do what the Church does" requires indending the sacramental effect, who rejects the Catholic Church's universal Profession of Faith ('89 Professio), who believes the "danger of death" that triggers supplied jurisdiction refers to spiritual death; who believe bishops receive their jurisdiction from the laity "who confer it upon them"; who claim that a three sentence letter signed by a Cardinal (not the pope) constitutes a Decretum Laudis that raises them to a society of pontifical rite with the authority to incardinate priests? How can this sect, whose funder died under a declared excommunication, whose clergy are excommunicated, and whose lay "formal adherents" must be received into the Church by a formal process, can be looked upon by Catholics as defenders of the Faith, is not only a mystery, but an evident manifestation of the diabolical disorientation spoken of by St. Lucy of Fatima.

This is an exampe of a false statement that would be qualified as schismatic (propositio schismatica). It's one thing to dissobey a specific command if it violates divine law, and another to refuse any obedience to the pope because you think he is causing confusion.

Do Muslims Worship the One True God? In Tractatus de Fide, Disputatio XVIII, § IV, Suarez makes a distinction between two classes of infidels (unbelievers), and places the Muslims in the same category as the Jews who, he says, "worship the one true God." Suarez: "Finally, there remains a question arising from what has been said—which St. Thomas treats in Summa Theologiae 2-2, q. 10, a. 11—namely, whether the rites of infidels should be tolerated in the realms of the faithful. For it seems to follow from what has been said that they should not be tolerated, because they are superstitious and offensive to God, whose true worship those rulers are bound to promote. However, St. Thomas rightly distinguishes between two types of rites: some are contrary to natural reason and to God as known by the light of nature—such as idolatry, etc. Others are indeed superstitious when compared to the Christian faith and its precepts, yet are not in themselves intrinsically evil or contrary to natural reason—such as the rites of the Jews, and perhaps many rites of 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘀 [𝗠𝘂𝘀𝗹𝗶𝗺𝘀] 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲 𝗚𝗼𝗱 (qui unum tantum verum Deum adorant). ... This reasoning applies generally to 𝗦𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲 𝗚𝗼𝗱.” (Suárez, Tractatus de Fide, Disputatio XVIII, § IV, n. 9.)

So, accusations from demons against nameless members of the hierarchy are publicly presented as facts by Fr. Ripperger. All this preternatural gossip does is scandalizes the laity and instill further distrust in the hierarchy.

Don't tell John Henry Westen, but Pope Leo XIII taught the same in Humanam Genus (1884): “Amongst the many benefits to be expected from it will be the great benefit of drawing the minds of men to liberty, fraternity, and equality of right; not such as the Freemasons absurdly imagine, but such as Jesus Christ obtained for the human race and St. Francis aspired to: the liberty."

Traditional Franciscan Publisher Writes Open Letter of Concern on the SSPX onepeterfive.com/traditional…

Sedevacantism and the Manifest Heretic. An historical and theological refutation Sedevacantism tradanswers.substack.com/p/s…

The Unfailing Faith of Peter: A Reply to Ron Conte open.substack.com/pub/tradan…

Sedevacantist Debate: Robert Siscoe vs. Fr. Kramer open.substack.com/pub/tradan…

An Old Catholic priest (public non-Catholic) accuses Taylor Marshall of not being Catholic? Are we in the Twilight Zone?

Fr. Cekada, who dies outside the Church, continues to decieve unsuspecting Catholics from beyond the grave. As Cardinal Billot explains in the quote below, a "material heretic" is not a Catholic (i.e., one who submits to the Church's magisterium as the rule of faith) who errs in good faith; it is a public non-Catholic (e.g., a Protestant, Sedevacantist, etc.) who errs in good faith. A Catholic who errs in good faith can be in material heresy, but he is not a material heretic. As Billot also explains below, "if by 'material heretic' you understand one who professes dependence upon the magisterium of the Church in matters of faith, but denies something defined by the Church because he is ignorant of the fact that it was defined, or holds an opinion contrary to Catholic teaching because he mistakenly thinks that it is taught by the Church, then it would be utterly absurd to put material heretics outside the body of the true Church; but this would also be to distort completely the true meaning of the word." Both formal heretics and material heretics are outside of the Church, since both terms refer to public non-Catholics; that is, those who are separated from the body (or structure) of the Church. Cardinal Billot, Tractus De Ecclesia Christi (1927): "Formal and Material Heretics "Now, heretics are divided into formal and material. Formal heretics are those to whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently known. Material heretics are those who, affected by invincible ignorance concerning the Church herself, choose in good faith another rule to determine what they are to believe. The heresy of material heretics is not imputed as a sin; on the contrary, it is possible for them to have even that supernatural faith which is the commencement and root of all justification; for, they might believe all the principal articles explicitly, and believe the others, not explicitly, but implicity, by the disposition of their minds, and the good intention they have of believing all truths whatsoever are sufficiently proposed to them as revealed by God. Consequently, they can still belong in desire to the body of the Church and meet the other conditions necessary for salvation. "Nevertheless, because we are concerned with real incorporation into the visible Church of Christ, our thesis does not distinguish between formal and material heretics—understanding the latter according to the notion of a material heretic that we have just explained, which alone is the proper and genuine sense of the term. For, if by “material heretic” you understand one who professes dependence upon the magisterium of the Church in matters of faith, but denies something defined by the Church because he is ignorant of the fact that it was defined, or holds an opinion contrary to Catholic teaching because he mistakenly thinks that it is taught by the Church, then it would be utterly absurd to put material heretics outside the body of the true Church; but this would also be to distort completely the true meaning of the word. For, a sin is called “material” only when all the elements of that sin are present materially, but without advertence or deliberate choice. Now, heresy by its nature requires departure from the rule of the ecclesiastical magisterium. In the case cited, there is no departure; there is only an error of fact about what the rule dictates. Such an error cannot be heresy, even materially so. "Since, in the present discussion, it makes no difference whether one be a formal or a material heretic, we will direct our attention to another division. "Notorious and Occult Heretics "Heretics are divided into occult and notorious. Occult heretics are, in the first place, those who by a purely internal act disbelieve dogmas of faith proposed by the Church. Those also are occult, who do indeed manifest their heresy by external signs, but not by a public [i.e., notorious] profession. You will easily understand that many men of our times fall into the latter category—those, namely, who either doubt or positively disbelieve matters of faith, and do not disguise the state of their mind in the private affairs of life, but who have never expressly renounced the faith of the Church, and, when they are asked categorically about their religion, declare of their own accord that they are Catholics."