Olivia
Online
Trad Answers
@TradAnswers
Robert Siscoe and John Salza, authors of True or False Pope?, tackle questions that are perplexing many Catholics today using Traditional Catholic Theology.
United States
Joined April 2025
1K Following
567 Followers
852 Posts
@olbs12tl4 That's referring to converts from Judaism. The "old religion" refers to the Jewish religion to which they previously belonged.
Is Collegiality a Novelty of Vatican II or the Traditional Teaching on the Episcopal College? https://t.co/wdLpkHY77m This article was slightly revised and greatly expanded on 11/26.
@chesterbelloc3 Hi Ryan. I see what you were referring to. What I meant is a female deacon could fill the role of providing council, or spiritual direction, for sexual relate issues.
@chesterbelloc3 Hi Ryan. I'm not sure what I wrote that leads to that conclusion, but I definitely did not mean to suggest that a female deacon could absolve.
@FrLavery https://t.co/OCQ2HKllCr
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
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.
Yes, I do deny it, contrary to what you assumed. It wouldn't be the first time you were wrong about something basic :)
As for the Baltimore Catechism, let's start with the part about the 1st Commandment, heresy, worshipping with false religions... It's going to be an amazing class!
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).
The more logical approach, lest we waste time debating questions on which you and I are not even speaking the same language, is to define:
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.
Only then can we usefully spend time trying to identify *which* body of men claiming to be Catholic actually has the visibility as defined and as identified in these essentials.
We could argue whether a grain of wheat and an apple are both fruits, but if I was using a scientific definition and you were using common parlance, our discussion would be doomed to failure from the start. On the other hand, if we had simply started by accepting a scientific definition, we could easily prove whether or not a wheat grain is a fruit.
Since you are the one arguing that I do not belong to a visible Church, I'll let you answer the two questions above from theologians to begin.
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).
The more logical approach, lest we waste time debating questions on which you and I are not even speaking the same language, is to define:
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.
Only then can we usefully spend time trying to identify *which* body of men claiming to be Catholic actually has the visibility as defined and as identified in these essentials.
We could argue whether a grain of wheat and an apple are both fruits, but if I was using a scientific definition and you were using common parlance, our discussion would be doomed to failure from the start. On the other hand, if we had simply started by accepting a scientific definition, we could easily prove whether or not a wheat grain is a fruit.
Since you are the one arguing that I do not belong to a visible Church, I'll let you answer the two questions above from theologians to begin.
Replying 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 #1, 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).
@FrLavery https://t.co/a6hGqXMmoe
@FrLavery I will reply now in a new post.
@MagdalenaHuds18 @X_SedeQC @TradChad67 I'll be happy to discuss it with you, but Fastigi's position is a novelty. No theology manual agrees with Fastigi's position because Fastigi's position is wrong.
@grok @CrusaderFr @melodymlyons @CrusaderFr Grok confirmed what I said. If you think Grok contradicted anything I said, point it out.
@MagdalenaHuds18 @X_SedeQC @TradChad67 The following article includes Gasser's explanation: https://t.co/Bggoj3yFDp
@MagdalenaHuds18 @X_SedeQC @TradChad67 Fastigi's interpretation of Chapter IV of Pastor Aeterns directly contradicts what Bishop Gassor said the Council was teaching in the official relatio, which he delivered to the Council Fathers before their vote on the dogma during Vatican I.
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.
@TradAnswers @TradChad67 Your constant distinction which makes the Primacy and its supreme teaching power practically divisible, giving the dogma a sense the Church has not defined, is anathema under Dei Filius Cap. 4 c.iii (D. 1818; cf. see n⁰ 1832).
@X_SedeQC @TradChad67 Clearly, you don't understand Chapter IV of Pastor Aeternus, which is not surprising since you're a Sede heretic.
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Trends for you
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
241.3M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
118.8M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
114.5M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.9M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.3M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.8M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
90M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
84M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
75.5M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
73.4M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.8M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
66.4M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
65.2M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
63.1M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.2M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.7M followers
X
@x
60.6M followers