In the Catholic Encyclopedia we read the following commonly held definition of indefectibility:

”By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men.”

It is evident that indefectibility thus defined has been proven false by Vatican II and the later developments stemming from the council no matter your ecclesiology.

More specifically:

I. If you are a Sedevacantist/Sedeprivationist then you must wrestle with several issues; each more fatal to the above defined doctrine of indefectibility than the other. Firstly, the issue of a lack of the Vatican II Papal claimants’ legal removal from office after it became clear that the claimants were teaching heresy. It has been ~60 years now since the heresies of Vatican II and not only has a legal removal not happened, but virtually all of the world’s Catholic bishops and priests are supportive of the Vatican II Papal claimants and their heresies. This is a nail in the coffin of indefectibility as the visible and universal material Church has taught heresy to the world unimpaired for decades while all the more losing the sacraments (Holy Orders and by extension the Eucharist, Confession, Confirmation).

The Church must continue to exist materially as well as formally, and any break constitutes a defection.

Moreover it is clear that the post-Vatican II Church is materially continuous with the pre-Vatican II Church which makes Sedevacantism of ~60 years combined with invalid orders an impossibility to reconcile with indefectibility which has visibility as one of its constituent elements.

{Sedeprivationism avoids the issue of material continuity but then so does Old (Utrecht/Jansenist) Catholicism; the issue of authority and determination of faith fatally wounded under such a system}

As such Indefectibility is proven false by an ecclesiavacantism, lack of ordinary jurisdiction, material discontinuity (Sedevacantism), lack of visibility, and I will also add the splintering of Sedevacantist/Sedeprivationist groups into tens if not hundreds of sects.

II. If you are a Conciliar Catholic then you are faced with the reality that the pre-VII Church is formally unidentifiable with and mostly dissimilar to the pre-Conciliar Church. You are also forced to the maximum extent possible to demonstrate a hermeneutic of continuity both exegetical and preservative. However with the canonizations of John Paul II, Paul VI, John XXIII, the reversal of teaching on the death penalty, the new teaching on the Jєωs and the law, the abolishment of EENS, and the plethora of similar ruptures, indefectibility is thus proven false.

III. If you are R&R then you are faced with a Church that can (and has) substantively false teachings regardless of whether the teachings are “infallible" or not. Ultimately you are faced with grim outcomes regarding indefectibility as the Church has undergone deadly impairment to its essential characteristics in teaching, authority, and Faith/Morals.

In conclusion, there are no good reasons to hold onto the definition of indefectibility that became so popular in the 19th and 20th centuries. It has demonstratively been proven false, not by argument, but simply observation.

Instead let us hold to Tradition and reject Ultramontanism in all its forms.

Ladislaus are you speaking to me or the op? I apologize if I've said anything wrong.

Also everyone, I am pretty new to tradition(less than 1 year) so take my opinions with a grain of salt. I hope to learn from this forum so please nobody hesitate to correct me.

No, I was referring to the OP.  I had not gotten around to reading your post.  But the way I read the post from OP, where it eliminates Conciliar Catholicism, sedevacantism, AND R&R all from legitimacy ... what kind of adherence to Tradition that excludes these three positions (and is not ultramontanist) is being proposed?  That makes it sound like Old Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.  There's actually been a lot of that going around lately for some reason.

So you're proposing some holding fast to Tradition that is not Conciliar Catholicism, nor R&R, nor sedevacantism.  Sounds pretty much like you're pushing Old Catholicism or else Eastern Orthodoxy.  Those heresies are not welcome here.  This is the second time you've reposted this nonsense in slightly different form.

Your reply above is an incorrect assessment of my post; more accurately, it is an exercise of the straw man fallacy.

My point was not, as you claimed, a propositional suggestion or assertion, implicit or explicit, regarding Tradition and how the different ecclesiological positions in response to the crisis conform to the aforementioned Apostolic inheritance. Rather it was a refutation of an Ultramontane definition of the concept of “indefectibility” which I essentially argued vis a vis observation that when defined per the Catholic Encyclopedia entry and similarly by post Vatican I manualists “indefectibility” is an innovation with no Patristic or ancient basis in so far as the definitional assertions do not correspond to matters which were claimed by the Early or Medieval Church nor can they represent a legitimate doctrinal development due to the reality of the situation we currently face which contradicts what was put forth by Ultramontanists.

Lastly it is only fair that I provide examples of what I meant by “holding to Tradition.” And that I shall do below.

---

Taken from a compilation of Patristic texts on the topic:

— St. Augustine of Hippo, (A.D. 354-428)
— St. Isidore of Pelusium, (unknown - A.D. 440)
— St. Cyril of Alexandria, (A.D. 376-444)
— St. Prosper of Aquitain, (A.D.c.390- c.463)
— St. Peter Chrysologus, (A.D. 406 - 450)
— St. Vincent of Lérins , (A.D. c.400-445)
— Pope St. Leo I, ( A.D. c.391-461)
— Arnobius Junior, (flourished in the 5th century, A.D. c.460)
— Pope St. Felix III, (unknown-492)

"In Thy tabernacle I shall dwell for ever." (Psalm 55:5). As, not for a brief period was the Church to exist on this earth, but the Church will be here until the end of the world, therefore does he say, "I shall dwell in Thy tabernacle for ever." Let the enemy rage as he pleases, let him assail me, lay snares against me, multiply scandals, and make my heart sore, "I will dwell in Thy tabernacle for ever." The Church shall not be conquered; shall not be rooted up; nor give way before any trials whatever, until the end of this world shall come, and out of this temporal dwelling-place we be received into that eternal one, unto which may He lead us who has become our hope: I will dwell, etc. . . . If the Church were here for but a few days, the snares of the tempter would soon have an end. Good: them wouldst fain have the temptations last but a few days, but how could she gather together all that are born, were she not here long, if her existence were not stretched out even unto the end."

T. iv. Enarr. in Ps. Ix. n. 6, col. 837.
The Faith of Catholics, Volume 1, Page 236

"There are some who say: "She, that was the Church of all nations, is already no more; she has perished." This they say who are not in her. The impudent assertion! Is she no more, because thou art not in her? Look to it lest thou, for that cause, be no more: for she will be, though thou be not. This assertion, abominable, detestable, full of presumption and falsehood, upheld by no truth, without one spark of wisdom, devoid of all wit, vain, rash, hasty, pernicious, the Spirit of God foresaw, and as it were struck at such when it announced unity, "When the people assemble together and kings to serve the Lord" (Psalm 101) . . . And because there were to be certain men who would say against her, "She was, but is not", Declare unto me, she says, the fewness of my days. What is it that I know not what individuals who withdraw from me mutter against me? How is it that these lost men contend that I have perished? For undoubtedly they say, that I was, but am not. Declare unto me the fewness of my days. I ask Thee not of those eternal days; they are without end, where I shall be; I ask not about them; I ask about my days during time, declare unto me the days of my sojourning here. The fewness of my days, not the eternity of my days, declare unto me. Declare unto me, how long I shall be in this world, on account of those who say, "She was, and already she is not:" on account of those who say, "The Scriptures have been fulfilled; all nations have believed, but the Church of all nations has apostatized and perished." What means this, "Declare unto me the fewness of my days?" And He declared, nor was this word vain. Who declared unto me, but the way itself. How did He declare? Behold! I am with you: even to the consummation of the world. (Matthew 18) But here, they rise up, and say,"I am with you. He says, even to the consummation of the world, because He foresaw us, because the party of Donatus will be on the earth."Tell me, is this she who said, "Declare unto me the fewness of my days", and not rather she who said, higher up, "When the people assemble together, and kings to serve the Lord."

[He pursues the same argument at length, and concludes]:

Therefore, even to the end of the world, is the Church in all nations; and this is the fewness of her days, because whatsoever has an end is few; that so, from this fewness, she may pass into eternity."

T. iv. Enarr. in Ps. ci. n. 8, 9, col. 1576-1578.
The Faith of Catholics, Volume 1, Page 236-237

"He has founded the earth upon its firmness, it shall not be moved for ever. (Psalm 103:5) There is a difficulty here, if the words be taken literally. . . . Let us turn ourselves to seek for something that is here set down figuratively. "He has founded the earth", I understand the Church. "The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof" (Psalm 103); I understand, by the earth, the Church. She is the earth that thirstiest; she it is that speaketh in the psalms for she alone, out of all, says, "My soul is like earth without water unto Thee." (Psalm 142:6). ... By the earth, therefore, I understand the Church. What is the firmness upon which she is founded, but her foundation? . . . What is that foundation? Other foundation, he says, no man can lay but that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus. There then are we firmly founded: with reason, because that we are there founded, we shall not be moved for ever for nothing is stronger than this foundation. Thou wast infirm, but a firm foundation supports thee. On thyself thou couldst not be firm; thou wilt be ever firm, if thou withdraw not from that firm foundation. It shall not be moved for ever. She is the predestined pillar and ground of truth."

T. iv. Enarr. in Ps. ciii. n. 17, col. 1628-29.
The Faith of Catholics, Volume 1, Page 238

"There follows (in the Creed) after the commemoration of the Trinity, the Holy Church. God and His temple have been shown you. For the temple of God is holy, says the Apostle, which ye are. (1 Corinthians 3:7) This is the holy Church; the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church, which fights against all heresies. She may fight, but cannot be defeated. All heresies have gone out from her like useless branches cut off from the vine: but she remains in her own root, in her own vine, in her own charity. The gates of Hell shall not conquer her."

T. iv. De Symbolo, ad Catech. n. 14 (al. 6), col. 927-28.
The Faith of Catholics, Volume 1, Page 238-239

"The Church is firmly built, and not even the gates of Hell can overthrow it, as the God that made it, promised."

L. i. Ep. cccxi.p. 83.
The Faith of Catholics, Volume 1, Page 239

"To the deacon Eutonius, concerning our Savior's declaration relative to the Church, that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against Her. Not that no one should war against, or try to destroy, the Church, but that many should oppose her, but should be vanquished by her power, is it said, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it, the Church to wit. And thus has it befallen: she has indeed been warred against, but has not been vanquished, yea, has shone forth more resplendent than they that tried to destroy or [quench] her."

L. iii. Ep. vi. pp. 257-58.
The Faith of Catholics, Volume 1, Page 239


"Then the Church of the Gentiles shone forth, having Christ dwelling within it: He the end of the law and of the prophets. . . . And I am of opinion, that This truer tabernacle was foretold to us by the prophet Isaiah, who says unto each one that is called in faith unto righteousness: "Thine eyes shall see Jerusalem, rich cities, tabernacles that shall not be moved, neither shall the stakes of that tabernacle be stirred, nor shall the cords thereof be broken for ever. (Isaiah 33:20) For God's city is the Church, of which blessed David has made mention, saying, "Glorious things are said of thee, O city of God." (Psalm 86) For she is rich, and is adorned with gifts from on high, even from Heaven, and has a solid foundation upon what is firm, both a foundation and a permanency, for, according to the Savior's word, "The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."

T. i. l. x. De Ador. in Sp. et Ver. p. 332.
The Faith of Catholics, Volume 1, Page 239

"It is befitting that they who sing this canticle (Isaiah 26) should say of the Church of our Savior, "Lo! a fortified city and our safety; for the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16), according to the declaration of our Savior, for it is girded round as with a double wall, both by the aids of the holy angels, and by that which is from above, and from God, who is its bulwark."

T. 2, Comm. in Esai. Lib. iii. t. i. p. 358.
The Faith of Catholics, Volume 1, Page 240

"I have raised him up a king with justice, and all his ways are right." (Isaiah 45:13). The ways of Christ are right, and he has built the holy city, that is, the Church, wherein also He dwells. For He abides in the saints, and we have become temples of the living God, having Christ within us through the participation of the Holy Spirit. He, therefore, founded the Church, Himself being the foundation, in which we also, as rich and precious stones, are built into a holy temple, as a dwelling-place for God in the spirit; the Church, having Christ for a foundation, and an immovable support, is perfectly immovable: "For behold I lay the foundations of Sion, a stone elect, a corner stone, precious, and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded." "

T. ii. Comm. in Esai. l. iv. or. 2, p. 612.
The Faith of Catholics, Volume 1, Page 240

"Be renewed unto me, ye islands. Israel shall be saved by the Lord with an everlasting salvation." (Isaiah 45) As the islands of the sea are ever buffeted by the assaulting waves, but remain immovable, and receive the vessels that are, at times, in danger, opening to them a harbor undisturbed by the waves; so the churches of Christ lie in the very midst of the tumult and the wilderness of life, and are assailed by countless trials; but they have in Christ immovableness, and they receive into their resting-place those who fly from the vain and empty restlessness of the things of the world."

T. ii. Comm. in Esai. l. iv. or. 2, p. 615 L. v.
The Faith of Catholics, Volume 1, Page 240

"Declare unto me the fewness of my days." (Psalm 101:24). All that ends and passes away is brief; for this temporal life in comparison with eternity is brief: the Church for this cause asks to have her days declared unto her, that she may know that she is to endure unto the end of the world, until the days come which can neither be numbered nor end. Call me not away in the midst of my days (verse 25). Let not, she says, my days be shortened, until the consummation of the world, as thou hast promised; until the fullness of the Gentiles come in, and all Israel be saved."

In Psalm 101 col. 377.
The Faith of Catholics, Volume 1, Page 241

"The deep like a garment is its clothing above the mountains shall the waters stand." (Psalm 103:6) By the word earth we have understood the Church foretold, which, having Christ for its foundation, shall not be moved forever and ever. Nevertheless, it is signified that it will be surrounded by the deluge of persecutions (which are foreshown under the name of the deep, and of the waters) in such a way as to be covered as with a garment by those that assail it."

In Psalm 103, col. 385.
The Faith of Catholics, Volume 1, Page 241

"Christ may be understood, because He is present in the Church, even to the end of the world."

In Ps. 108, col. 414.
The Faith of Catholics, Volume 1, Page 241

"I believe — the holy Catholic Church; that thou mayest acknowledge a Church, the spouse of Christ, which will abide in the uninterrupted society of Christ."

Serm. lxi. p. 95.
The Faith of Catholics, Volume 1, Page 243

"Avoid profane novelties of words", he says: "of words", that is, novelties of dogmas, of things, of opinions, which are contrary to old usage, and antiquity. Which (novelties) if they be received, would require that the faith, either all, or assuredly a great part of it,
of our blessed fathers, must be overthrown (violated); it would mean that all the faithful of all ages, all the saints, all the chaste, the continent, the virgins, all the clergy, the Levites and priests, so many thousands of confessors, so great armies of martyrs, so many celebrated and populous cities and peoples, so many islands, provinces, kings, tribes, kingdoms, nations, and in fine, almost now the whole world incorporated by the Catholic faith with Christ their head, must be proclaimed to have been, during the lapse of so many ages, ignorant, and to have erred, to have blasphemed, to have not known what it should believe."

"Avoid, says he, profane novelties of words (voices], to receive and to follow which, was never the custom of Catholics, but was always that of heretics. And in fact what heresy hath ever burst forth, save under a certain name, in a certain place, at a certain time? Whoever instituted heresies, save he who first divided himself from the consent of the universality and antiquity of the Catholic Church? Which that it is so, examples prove clearer than the sun. For whoever before that profane Pelagius presumed so much on the force of free will, that lie thought not the grace of God necessary to aid it in good things throughout every act.

[Having cited Celestiusv Arius, Sabellius, Novatian, Simon Magus, as each the well known author of some special novelty, he adds:]

Such examples are innumerable, which for the sake of brevity we pass over: by all which nevertheless it is shown evidently and plainly enough, that this is as it were a custom and law in almost all heresies, that they ever delight in profane novelties, loath the decrees of antiquity, and make shipwreck of the faith by oppositions of knowledge falsely so called. Contrary to this, and proper to Catholics, we keep the things left and committed to their charge by the holy fathers, condemn profane novelties, and as the Apostle said, and again forewarned, "If any man shall preach besides that which has been received, to anathematize (him)" (Galatians 1).

Adv.Hæres, n. xxiv.
The Faith of Catholics, Volume 1, Page 243-244

"By no kind of cruelty can the religion founded by the mystery (sacrament) of the cross be destroyed. By persecution the Church is not lessened but increased, and the field of the Lord is always clothed with a richer harvest, while the grains which fall singly grow up multiplied."

T. 1, Serm. lxxxii. c. 5.
The Faith of Catholics, Volume 1, Page 244

"Stand therefore in the spirit of Catholic truth.... Do not think that the divine protection is, or will be, wanting to His holy Church. For the purity of the faith shines forth when the filth of error is separated from it."

T. 1, Ep. 1. (al. xlv.) ad Constantinop. c. 2, p. 935.
The Faith of Catholics, Volume 1, Page 244

"But Thou hast upheld me by reason of mine innocence, and hast established me in Thy sight forever." (Psalm 13) This signifies the Church in the Apostles and prophets; for not philosophers and rhetoricians, but unlearned men and fishermen, upheld of God, founded a Church which He has established in His sight for ever."

Comm. in Ps. xl.p. 259, t. viii. Bibl. Max. SS. PP.
The Faith of Catholics, Volume 1, Page 244-245

"Whereas our Lord has said that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against His Church. . . . this (heretic) has dared to say, that we ought not to denominate Christ, the Son of God, and that in accordance with the divine institution of the Saviour, and the tradition of the divine Scriptures, and the exposition of the Fathers."

T. iv. Labb. Condi. Ep. Zenoni, col. 1070-1071.
The Faith of Catholics, Volume 1, Page 245

Taking advantage of the ambiguous antecedent for the pronoun "it" in the second part of your sentence, i agree ... if by "it" you mean your post, since it uses strawmen to attack the various positions.

Seriously, however, please characterize your position regarding the Crisis.  You rejected all of the current positions, so you've only defined it in terms of a negative.

I appreciate the sardonic wit and burlesque humor. I find that it is quite useful in conversations such as these where it is common for things to become too serious.

As for my position on the current crisis in the Church, I do indeed reject all five commonly held standpoints per their traditional conception (Conciliarism, R&R, Sedevacantism, Sedeprivationism, and Conclavism) especially mystical or apocalyptical variations, due to what I perceive as irreconcilable contradictions that lead to cognitive dissonance and irresolvable difficulties that lead to intellectual dishonesty.

Positively I hold to “Traditionism.” This is a term I coined to characterize those Catholics who do not neatly fit in any of the other paradigms. I define it based off of Vincent of Lerins’ famous canon: Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus.

Ecclesiologically this means no more than what Vatican I succinctly defined: “For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.”

Yet I reject the very next part of the same paragraph which states: “for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error.” 

Why? Certainly not arbitrarily, but because it cannot be said to be part of Tradition and is moreover historically & demonstrably false.

e.g.

“Therefore the holy and universal sixth Synod, which by the will of God your clemency summoned and presided has followed in all things the teaching of the Apostles and approved Fathers. And because, as we have said, it has perfectly preached the definition of the true faith which the Apostolic See of blessed Peter the Apostles (whose office we unworthily hold) also reverently receives, therefore we, and by our ministry this reverend Apostolic See, wholly and with full agreement do consent to the definitions made by it, and by the authority of blessed Peter do confirm them, even as we have received firmness from the Lord Himself upon the firm rock which is Christ.…and in like manner we anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, betrayers rather than leaders of the Church of Constantinople, and also*Honorius* who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.

To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”

In other words, I reject as innovation anything that cannot be found explicitly in the Early Church. Thus I reject invincible ignorance, the anonymous Christian, implicit Baptism of Desire, implicit faith, a Limbo of infants in which there is perfect natural happiness, etc.

However I do not deny the Papacy or any of the Popes even if they are heretics teaching heresy. I accept Pope Francis as the Roman Pontiff, I accord to him submission of mind & will, and I accept his teachings in so far as they are in line with Tradition, but I reject his innovations the same way I reject the innovation of pre-Conciliar Popes. 

In other words, I reject the idea of the Pope being the rule of faith. The Pope is only useful in so far as he is a unifying figure of Christians, the spiritual-temporal guide of Christendom, and the guardian of Tradition as it was handed down with innovation or blemish. As soon as he steps out of those roles then he is to be ignored and resisted and no one may be called a schismatic 

So perhaps this position is analogous to R&R, but more consistent in that I also reject pre-Conciliar innovations. 

I appreciate the sardonic wit and burlesque humor. I find that it is quite useful in conversations such as these where it is common for things to become too serious.

As for my position on the current crisis in the Church, I do indeed reject all five commonly held standpoints per their traditional conception (Conciliarism, R&R, Sedevacantism, Sedeprivationism, and Conclavism) especially mystical or apocalyptical variations, due to what I perceive as irreconcilable contradictions that lead to cognitive dissonance and irresolvable difficulties that lead to intellectual dishonesty.

Positively I hold to “Traditionism.” This is a term I coined to characterize those Catholics who do not neatly fit in any of the other paradigms. I define it based off of Vincent of Lerins’ famous canon: Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus.

Ecclesiologically this means no more than what Vatican I succinctly defined: “For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.”

Yet I reject the very next part of the same paragraph which states: “for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error.”

Why? Certainly not arbitrarily, but because it cannot be said to be part of Tradition and is moreover historically & demonstrably false.

e.g.

“Therefore the holy and universal sixth Synod, which by the will of God your clemency summoned and presided has followed in all things the teaching of the Apostles and approved Fathers. And because, as we have said, it has perfectly preached the definition of the true faith which the Apostolic See of blessed Peter the Apostles (whose office we unworthily hold) also reverently receives, therefore we, and by our ministry this reverend Apostolic See, wholly and with full agreement do consent to the definitions made by it, and by the authority of blessed Peter do confirm them, even as we have received firmness from the Lord Himself upon the firm rock which is Christ.…and in like manner we anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, betrayers rather than leaders of the Church of Constantinople, and also*Honorius* who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.

To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”

In other words, I reject as innovation anything that cannot be found explicitly in the Early Church. Thus I reject invincible ignorance, the αnσnymσus Christian, implicit Baptism of Desire, implicit faith, a Limbo of infants in which there is perfect natural happiness, etc.

However I do not deny the Papacy or any of the Popes even if they are heretics teaching heresy. I accept Pope Francis as the Roman Pontiff, I accord to him submission of mind & will, and I accept his teachings in so far as they are in line with Tradition, but I reject his innovations the same way I reject the innovations of pre-Conciliar Popes.

In other words, I reject the idea of the Pope being the rule of faith. The Pope is only useful in so far as he is a unifying figure of Christians, the spiritual-temporal guide of Christendom, and the guardian of Tradition as it was handed down without innovation or blemish. As soon as he steps out of those roles then he is to be ignored and resisted and no one may be called a schismatic who resists in cases where it is clear that the Pope has abused his authority.

So perhaps this position is analogous to R&R, but more consistent in that I also reject pre-Conciliar innovations.

Reposted with some grammatical corrections.