CathInfo.com

They never were Popes, sedevacantists claim, as they were manifest heretics prior to claiming office, falling under the precepts of cuм Ex.

Yes, I understand that. 

But I keep pointing out the "governing body" aspect of this. Indefectibility requires not only teaching without error but also a teacher, i.e. a "governing body" to do the teaching. 

All the bishops in union with the Conciliar popes are heretics and not members of the Church per this "manifest heretic" argument. Where is the "governing body"? It's not even like an interregnum since they're all Novus Ordo heretics. Not even a single Catholic bishop with ordinary jurisdiction can be pointed to.

I guess my main point is the traditional teaching regarding indefectibility, which requires both a teacher and a teaching without error, has been stood on its head by V2 and the Conciliar popes. 


 

For example, per Stubborn's understanding of indefectibility, yes, the Church is indefectible. As a former Feeneyite I use to argue the solemn Magisterium v. Ordinary Magisterium distinction, and recognize the possibility of error in ordinary magisterial teaching. That seems to make sense more and more these days.

Canon 1323, section 1 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law states: All of those things are to be believed with a divine and Catholic faith that are contained in the written word of God or in tradition and that the Church proposes as worthy of belief, as divinely revealed, whether by solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium.

I will try to address some of your other points today, but I don't think I understand your position here. You are claiming the hierarchy cannot defect, so I'm not sure what your belief is about the state of the hierarchy today, since it doesn't appear that you recognize what is coming from Rome right now as part of the Church's teaching either.

Regarding your quote about the Church always having a governing body, first of all, it didn't make it into Vatican I, so maybe the Holy Ghost prevented it from going in. Who knows. But it's not a statement of the magisterium, so it doesn't have any authority in itself. Even then, it doesn't say there will always be a living human being holding office in the college of bishops or the papacy. I realize there are different positions on this, and smarter guys than me believe it is Catholic dogma that there will always be a living person holding office as an ordinary, so I tread cautiously here ... but all the quotes adduced as proof of this don't seem quite specific enough to prove the claim they are offered in support of. Okay, so the Church will have "shepherds until the end of time", as Vatican I says. Of course I accept this. But I don't understand how that can't be understood to be simply a description of the fact that the Church has a perpetual structure of authority, both doctrinal and disciplinary, a structure of shepherds that will rule until the end of time. In other words, I don't see why this statement can't be taken as describing the structure within which the shepherds exercise authority, rather than referring to the shepherds themselves, as everyone seems to take it. Obviously, until the post-Vatican II era that distinction has never had to be made, so maybe that's why this quote is not as explicit as we would wish, but I really don't find this argument convincing by itself.