See my previous post.  This is false.  There's a confusion about what the visibility of the Church means and what it does not mean.  You need only look at 1) vacancies of the Holy See, 2) the Arian crisis, and 3) the Great Western schism.

How is the ONE Church visible when many Catholics with the faith have had break visible communion with this alleged hierarchy in order to keep the Faith?  We can't take a simplistic view of visibility.  OK something is visible in the Conciliar Church.  So what?  Something is visible also in the Orthodox.  It's the Church with all its NOTES that must remain visible and not some random institution that calls itself Catholic.  It's a True Pope that should be visible, not just some guy walking around Rome in a white cassock.  It's absurd to think that visibility is preserved simply by a guy in the white cassock and the name Catholic, when this Conciliar Church lacks the essential notes of the Church, as Archbishop Lefebvre himself publicly stated.  Archbishop Lefebvre said that the Marks of the Church are visible among TRADITIONAL Catholics and not in the Conciliar Church.

69. Now since its Founder willed this social body of Christ to be visible, the cooperation of all its members must also be externally manifest through their profession of the same faith and their sharing the same sacred rites, through participation in the same Sacrifice, and the practical observance of the same laws. Above all, it is absolutely necessary that the Supreme Head, that is, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, be visible to the eyes of all, since it is He who gives effective direction to the work which all do in common in a mutually helpful way towards the attainment of the proposed end. As the Divine Redeemer sent the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth, who in His name [138] should govern the Church in an invisible way, so, in the same manner, He commissioned Peter and his successors to be His personal representatives on earth and to assume the visible government of the Christian community.

Angelus,

The issue is the "indefectibility" of the Church and the presence of a "governing body" in the Church. Visibility is taken as an aspect that this "governing body" has according to, and for the reasons expressed, by the fathers of Vatican I. But making it the central issue is a deflection from the crux of the matter. Btw, I am not saying you do this, but just commenting on your post about the Church. 

The issue is the continuation of the "governing body" as one aspect of the Church's indefectibility.

At issue is the Church's ongoing "indefectibility." So, what is the definition, and is it met under the present circuмstances? This is the issue.

DR

In my opinion, "indefectibility" means that "the true Church" cannot defect from the standard of the true faith (including the authentic sacraments and immemorial tradition). This means that if there is some entity that claims to be "the Catholic Church" but it has "defected from" the true faith, then that entity is not the true Church, it is a counterfeit Church.

A corollary to this is that the "visibilty" does not mean the entity that holds all the keys to the Vatican and controls bank accounts that pay priests is the "true Church." Visibility can only refer to  the visibility of the "true Church," which again is the "society" that holds the same faith, the same sacred rites, and the same laws as the Apostles and the communion of the saints.

There could be just a few people in this "society" of the "true Church," but this very small "society" must have all the marks of the true faith, sacraments and laws that have been held for all time without contradiction. It does not need to have any buildings or bank accounts and it doesn't need political or media "authorities" to acknowledge it as the "true Church."

You seem to think that when someone says "the Church" is "indefectible," it means that "the Church" is that entity that "everybody" calls "the Catholic Church" with an address in Rome/Vatican City and bishops and priests who submit to whomever happens to be "sitting in the Chair" in Rome/Vatican City. That is what "everyone" thinks is the way to find, "the Church." And it worked for almost two thousand years. But "the Church" cannot be properly defined in such a sociological/geographical way. In fact, it is that improper definition that has allowed the infiltration and deception that we call "the Crisis in the Church." With this model, an antipope could usurp the papacy and defect from the true faith. This is the model that Bergoglio is following.

What did I miss?

Angelus,

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I was using that definition of indefectibility from the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church drafted for Vatican I.


No. I am using the definition of the Vatican 1 fathers who drafted the constitution, which does not speak about geography at all.

If, say, John XXIII was confirmed or shown to be, beyond dispute, a flaming heretic, the Church would still have a "governing body" of bishops with a true power of jurisdiction - those appointed by a pope with the Catholic faith, Pius XII. Those bishops could be in Australia, India . . . wherever. The same goes for Paul VI; there would still be bishops appointed by Pius XII, true succesors of the Apostles. Again, geopraphy irrelevant.

Now, if they did not oppose the heretic(s), as St. Athanasius did, would they then lose their authority as heretics or schismatics? That is another question.

No, the issue is not the "Vatican," or "Rome." It is a continuing "governing body" carrying on the work of Christ, then the Apostles in His stead, as teacher, sanctifier and ruler.

This was discussed more fully in this thread:

Indefectibility requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisidisdiction - page 1 - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com)

I didn't mean to hijack this thread, and I'm sorry to the original poster if I did. Perhaps it would be better to continue this there.

Thanks for the discussion.

DR

Fine with me if you want to move it over to the other thread. But for now, I will try to clarify my main point here.

 You are referencing the doctrine of "indefectibility of the Church." I am saying that before we can understand the "property/quality/predicate/accident" of a thing, we must first agree on the nature of the "thing itself/the substance/the subject" having that property.

Therefore, I am saying that before we talk about "indefectibility of the Church," we must first agree on the nature or definition of "the Church." Only after we come to an agreement about what "the Church" IS, in its nature, can we fruitfully discuss its "indefectibility." That is why I referenced Pius XII's Mystici Corporis, 69.

And even though you say that "geography" is "irrelevant." In the same paragraph, you again described the Church from the perspective of geography when you said the following:

"...the Church would still have a "governing body" of bishops with a true power of jurisdiction - those appointed by a pope with the Catholic faith, Pius XII. Those bishops could be in Australia, India . . . wherever."

So, it seems to me that your "mental model" of the Church IS still one that has a fundamental "geographical" requirement, which is not surprising, considering that the dioceses of the Church cover every square inch of the planet. But if many of those diocese are "governed" by manifest heretics, then those "governors" do not hold the "true power of jurisdiction" anyway. This, by the way, matches the situation of the Arian Crisis, where most of "the hierarchy" claimed to be Catholic but was not in fact Catholic.

I'm trying to say that all of those "governors" can be heretics, and all of those geographical dioceses can be theologically "vacant" (including the diocese of Rome, at least temporarily). But, even if that were the case, as long as there was a small faithful remnant (with some bishops, priests and laity), then "the Church" properly understood would continue to meet the requirement of "indefectibility" as long as that small remnant maintained "the marks" of the true Church.

The early Church was "the Church," but it did not have the concept of dioceses and such. So I don't think that is essential to the definition of "the Church." The true faith, traditional sacraments, and immemorial customs (as well as some consecrated bishops, priests, and laity) are the essential to the concept of "the Church." Other things are non-essential (at least in a temporary emergency scenario).

I do apologize if I'm not making myself clear. And I don't mean to say that "my opinion" can ever contradict the infallible teaching of the Church.