http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/melchisedech-appx10.htm

THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDECH
A Defence of the Catholic Priesthood
by Michael Davies
1979 AND 1993

Appendix X

The Indefectibility of the Church

The indefectibility of the Church is a teaching fundamental to the nature of Catholicism. It assures us that the Church is divinely constituted, and because Our Lord has promised that the gates of Hell will never prevail against it, its Divine constitution will endure unchanged until He comes again in glory to judge the living and the dead. In other words, the Church will remain in every essential respect precisely as Our Lord constituted it until the end of time. It will always be a visible, hierarchically governed Church whose bishops are in full Communion with the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ. It will always teach faithfully the Gospel entrusted to it by Our Lord, and impart the grace necessary for the faithful to live up to the demands of the Gospel through the Sacraments instituted by Our Lord. The doctrine of indefectibility guarantees that the supreme authority in the Church, the Roman Pontiff, could never impose or authorize for universal use throughout the Church any liturgical rite or practice that was contrary to sound doctrine, could invalidate the Sacrament, or undermine Catholic belief.

In this instance the Roman Rite can be considered as equivalent to universal as it includes the overwhelming majority of Catholics throughout the world, and is proper to the Holy See itself. Thus, if the Latin Ordinal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1968, or the Latin Missal promulgated by him in 1970, are examined carefully, they will be found to contain nothing incompatible with the Catholic faith. But only the Latin typical editions of sacramental rites come within the scope of the Church's indefectibility. Vernacular translations are, by their very nature, not imposed or authorized for the universal Church, and the possibility that they may contain erroneous or harmful elements cannot be excluded. A vernacular version of a sacramental form could result in invalidity if it did not reproduce the exact sense of the Latin text. This does not mean that it must be an absolutely literal translation, but if it departs from the Latin to the extent of involving a significant change of meaning, then the Sacrament will not be valid. It is true that all vernacular translations receive Papal approval, but this merely indicates that the Pope and the curial department concerned presume that a national hierarchy, or group of hierarchies linked on the basis of a common langauge, has ensured that translations into their languages are accurate. The almost countless vernacular versions of sacramental rites in the world today preclude the least possibility of any pope being able to vet them all personally for reasons of time, apart from ignorance of almost all the languages concerned. Mass is now said in Esperanto and Pidgin English, a fact which almost defies credibility, and does indeed do so when one hears the Pidgin form of the Consecration.

The aftermath of Vatican II proves how prudent the Popes were prior to the Council to insist upon the use of uniform Latin text for sacramental rites throughout the world.

The Church could not be considered a perfect, visible supernatural society (and it is of Divine faith that the Church possesses these characteristics) if the possibility existed of it offering its members invalid Sacraments. If ever a pope approved an invalid sacramental rite the faithful would be deprived of a means of holiness necesary for their salvation, and hence the Church would have failed, and the gates of Hell would have triumphed. In other words, Our Lord would have made a promise that He could not keep and hence He could not have been divine, which would mean that our entire religion is a mockery.

This is precisely what is claimed by those alleging that any of the sacramental rites promulgated since Vatican II are invalid. Concessions such as the permission for Communion in the hand, granted to specific countries, are also excluded from the scope of indefectibility. Where the reception of Holy Communion is concerned, the norm for the Roman Rite is still Communion on the tongue, even though in almost every country Communion in the hand has become the norm. But in every instance of the authorization of this practice the permission given has been from the norm of Communion on the tongue. It is perfectly legitimate to argue that by surrendering to the fait accompli of Communion in the hand in country after country the Holy See has contributed to the weakening of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. True as this may be, and I have not the least doubt that it is true, it does not compromise the doctrine of indefectibility as no blanket permission for Communion in the hand for the universal Church has ever been given.

The doctrine of indefectibility most certainly does not require us to believe that new sacramental rites promulgated with papal authority are ipso facto superior to those that they are intended to replace. It
is perfectly permissible to claim that such a rite gives liturgical expression to the doctrine of the Sacrament it enshrines less effectively than its predecessor, thus weakening the principle lex orandi lex credendi. It is equally permissible to argue that the prayers and ceremonies of a new rite are less effective in raising the hearts and minds of the faithful to Almighty God, and evoking in them the sentiments and dispositions most likely to ensure fruitful reception of the Sacrament. All that the doctrine of indefectibility requires us to believe is that at the very least in its Latin Typical Edition, any sacramental rite approved by a Pope will be valid, contain no heresy, and nothing overtly harmful to the faithful participating in it.

Theologians make a distinction between the Pope 'sentiendo' (giving sentence) and the Pope 'disserendo' (giving an opinion). When Pope Paul VI promulgated the New Mass he "gave sentence" and guaranteed its validity. When, in his discourse of 19 November 1969, he claimed that it expresses Catholic Eucharistic teaching more clearly than the Tridentine Mass, he expressed an opinion. An opinion, even the opinion of the Sovereign Pontiff, deserves respect only to the extent to which it corresponds with reality.

The new sacramental rites promulgated since the Second Vatican Council can be seen as a paradigm of the Divine and human aspects of the Church. Pope Paul VI displayed lamentable human weakness in agreeing to replace rites whose origin is lost in the mists of Christian antiquity by the artificially concocted creations of commitee advised by Protestants. The Divine nature of the Church, and the practical application of the doctrine of indefectibility, can be seen in the fact that the new rites are undoubtedly valid and convey the same sacramental grace as those that they have replaced, but which, we must hope, will be restored one day. Acceptance of the doctrine of indefectibility by no means precludes our working and praying for this end.

In his Motu Proprio "Ecclesia Dei" of 2 July 1988, Pope John Paul II required the implementation of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for the rightful aspirations "of those Catholic faithful attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition." The Motu Proprio was soon implemented by authorizing the use of all the pre-conciliar sacramental rites by such orders as the Fraternity of St. Peter or the Benedictine Monks of Le Barroux, and so it is now beyond doubt that both the pre-and post-conciliar rites coexist within the Roman Rite. This must be regarded as no more than an interim measure in the process of their total restoration.

In his encyclical 'Iucanda Sane' commemorating the thirteenth centenary of the death of St. Gregory the Great, Pope St. Pius X wrote:

Never throughout the course of the ages has supernatural power been lacking in the Church; never have the promises of Christ failed. They remain as powerful today as when they filled the heart of Gregory with consolation. Rather, having withstood the test of time and the change of circuмstances and events, they possess even greater assurance.

It will always teach faithfully the Gospel entrusted to it by Our Lord, and impart the grace necessary for the faithful to live up to the demands of the Gospel through the Sacraments instituted by Our Lord. The doctrine of indefectibility guarantees that the supreme authority in the Church, the Roman Pontiff, could never impose or authorize for universal use throughout the Church any liturgical rite or practice that was contrary to sound doctrine, could invalidate the Sacrament, or undermine Catholic belief.

Well then, it's good to know that none of those things have happened.  I must remember not to open my eyes again and confuse myself with facts.

Steve, do you honestly think that the Conciliar Church faithfully teaches the Gospel?  Do you honestly think that the whole system of doctrine, practices, laws, and liturgy of the Conciliar Church inculcates the faith and leads souls in a sure manner to heaven?  

But only the Latin typical editions of sacramental rites come within the scope of the Church's indefectibility.

It's the New Mass itself that's the problem.  Likewise the new Code.  Likewise the new system of spirituality.  

What are you trying to prove with this article, stevus? That the Bogus Ordo is Catholic?

I thought his view was a good discussion topic as Santo and Pax apparently argue that the Church's indefectibilty applies to these things (CITH, girl altar boys, vernacular). I wanted to start a discussion as to whether this is true. Davies explains why he did not think it to be so.

Well he doesn't really explain why this is so, does he?  He just asserts that vernacular translations are not universal and therefore don't affect indefectibility.

There's no foundation for that argument.  It's really nothing more than the application of a condition of infallibility to a related but distinct truth, indefectibility.  He quotes no theologians in support of it, of course.

Indefectibility arises from the permanent union of the Holy Ghost with the Church.  It prevents the Church from ceasing to be the sure means of salvation which she is and must always be.  It is not a legal loophole which allows the Church to lead most souls to hell by doing what the bishops appointed and supervised by Rome say and do, just as long as some reserved sample of goodness is kept in an archive in Rome.  The Church always applies the means of salvation to souls.

Souls go to hell unless they are saved.  Think of the Ark, if you didn't get out of the water and into it, you could not be saved.  The Church is the one ark of salvation.  Souls must actively be led to salvation by the Church, or they will inevitably be lost.  The means that the Church uses are multifarious, and in every one of them the Novus hand of death has rendered them corrupt and all will agree at least hugely less effective than the traditional means of salvation.  So much less effective that souls "led" by the Novus Ordo either apostatise completely or live habitually in mortal sin, the sacrament of Penance being rarely used, the spirit of penance being almost universally lost (fasting, etc.)

That is not the Church.  It is dogmatically impossible.

Quote from: stevusmagnus

I thought his view was a good discussion topic as Santo and Pax apparently argue that the Church's indefectibilty applies to these things (CITH, girl altar boys, vernacular). I wanted to start a discussion as to whether this is true. Davies explains why he did not think it to be so.

Well he doesn't really explain why this is so, does he?  He just asserts that vernacular translations are not universal and therefore don't affect indefectibility.

There's no foundation for that argument.  It's really nothing more than the application of a condition of infallibility to a related but distinct truth, indefectibility.  He quotes no theologians in support of it, of course.

Indeed, there is no foundation at all for the argument that vernacular translations, when approved for use by priests in the liturgy, are not universal.  If the English language Mass can be used by priests to say Mass, then it is a universal law since that approved translation is used everywhere when that approved translation is used.  The same can be said for Italian, Spanish, and every other language.  There's no foundation to say that the one language in which the Conciliar Mass is never said, Latin, is the only "universal" version.

Communion in the hand, girl altar boys, the use of non-wheat bread for hosts, the priest facing the people, etc., etc., etc., are all universal decrees of the Conciliar church.  If that church is Catholic (which I am absolutely sure is not the case) then no one has any valid reason to oppose them on anything but asthetics, and this is universally declared in the motu proprio that changed the chains on the use of the traditional Rite of Mass in the Conciliar church.

This article touches on the issue....

http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__canonical.htm#formany

How is it possible to refuse a law coming from the Church, such as the change of "for many" into "for all" in the consecration of the Precious Blood at Mass?

This particular change in the words of consecration, the most serious in the New Mass, was not a part of the New Mass as "promulgated" (Note that properly speaking it was not really promulgated, both from the point of view of the formalities involved and from that of content) by Pope Paul VI on April 3, 1969 in his letter Missale Romanum. In the Latin text the words "for many" are retained. This change is consequently one of translation. However, it was manifestly not by accident that in all the modern European languages except Portuguese and Polish this same "error" of translation was committed. It is a manifest effort to undermine the clear teaching found in all three synoptic Gospels that the efficacity of Christ’s shedding His blood is limited to many souls, and not to all souls. The reason behind this change is consequently the modernist teaching on universal salvation, according to which Christ saved all human nature by his death on the Cross, whether people know it or not.

Since this is a change that manifestly undermines Catholic doctrine, it is equally clear that the traditional Catholic cannot accept it. The objection is then made as to how a Catholic can refuse such a disciplinary law, that purports to come from the Church? As Pope Gregory XVI pointed out, since "the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth" how could it "order, yield to, or permit those things which tend toward the destruction of souls and the disgrace and detriment of the sacraments instituted by Christ" (Quo Graviora)? It is manifestly impious to think that the Church herself, the immaculate spouse of Christ, can order or command something contrary to the Faith or to the salvation of souls. It is in effect a condemned proposition of the heretical Council of Pistoia that the Church "could impose a disciplinary law that would be not only useless and more burdensome for the faithful than Christian liberty allows, but also dangerous and harmful" (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei).

The true Catholic cannot, of course, deny the essential role of the Holy Ghost in governing the Church and its disciplinary laws, that is, its ecclesiastical tradition. However, it is manifestly obvious that this change of "for many" to "for all" is not a disciplinary law of the Church. Although tolerated practically everywhere, it was never "promulgated" by the pope, and was simply allowed to happen. Manifestly also, it could not be a law of the Church for it is opposed to the constant doctrinal teaching and liturgical practice, that is to constant unanimous ecclesiastical and apostolic Tradition. It is consequently not of the Church at all, but of certain churchmen, who have infiltrated it into the vernacular versions of the New Missal. It is an abuse, and it is modernist, and consequently could not possibly be a disciplinary law of the Church.

The same can be said of the other, but less obvious aspects of the New Mass that express modernism. They cannot be a true law, as St. Thomas Aquinas says (ST, I-II, Q. 96, A. 4), quoting St. Augustine, because unjust laws are not laws at all. Laws are manifestly unjust that are opposed to the divine Good, that is to the truth, holiness and sanctity of God, His Church and the sacraments. Yet this is precisely what the Novus Ordo Mass is. It undermines the Catholic teaching on the Mass as a true, propitiatory sacrifice, not to mention the sacredness of and devotion to the Blessed Sacrament (Communion in the hand is only one small part of this attack on the Real Presence), and the whole mystery of the Church, the communion of the saints, and reparation for our sins. Consequently, even if it were correctly promulgated by a pope, in such a way as to make it appear obligatory (which is not, in fact, the case), it would still be an unjust and invalid law. There is absolutely no contradiction between accepting that the pope truly is pope, and rejecting these laws that are manifestly not a work of the Church, nor does it demean the Church’s disciplinary and liturgical laws. In fact, it is because of our understanding of these laws, and of the reasons behind them, and of how perfectly they express Catholic doctrine, life and piety, that we are bound to refuse these pretend laws that are not really Catholic laws at all.

The sedevacantists make much ado about the infallibility of disciplinary laws. It is true that they can participate in the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, inasmuch as they imply a teaching that has always and everywhere been taught by the Church. Such is the case of the Bull Quo Primum, which most solemnly gives priests the right to celebrate the traditional Mass in perpetuity, precisely because St. Pius V guaranteed the fact that it perfectly expresses the Catholic Faith and spirituality concerning the Mass. However, a defective law, or a law that is unjust and unholy because it does not adequately express the teaching of the Church manifestly does not participate in the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, which has to be universal in time and place to be infallible. Consequently, the sedevacantists’ affirmation that we cannot accept that the pope is the pope without accepting that all his laws are infallible, is manifestly preposterous. To the contrary, it is our duty to pray that the pope use his authority in line with unchanging Tradition, in which case his laws will be infallible. This has happened extremely rarely under John Paul II, but is certainly the case of his refusal to accept the ordination of women to the priesthood.  [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]

How can Rome approve of any practice, even as a permission or an indult, that is intrinsically evil? If that is true, we can never trust anything Rome allows if it is not commanded as a universal practice. And then apparently, we don't even know what "universal" means, as Davies arbitrarily applies "universal" to the Latin Rite. Does he make this up as he goes along?

Well, if Rome has become the seat of the antichrist like Our Lady said it would, it's quite possible.

Our Lady never said that. However, this is another discussion entirely that would need its own thread.