Transferred from another thread and slightly revised.

Ladislaus: I already said that DL's list is missing one criterion.  I didn't get into it because I was going after you for declaring it heretical.  It is not even heretical to claim that Baptism alone suffices. 

The reason his definition is heretical is because he defines “the visible Catholic Church” as consisting of the body of individuals who meet his (incomplete) definition of a member of the Church.  That is exactly how the Protestants define the visible Catholic Church.  Here is how DL defined the Church:
 

Digital Logos:
To be a member of the Catholic Church one must be:
 1. Validly baptized.
 2. Profess the Catholic Faith.
 
 The visible Catholic Church is that body of individuals and clergy who do 1 and 2 above.

He equates the visible Catholic Church with those who meet his incomplete definition of members of the Church.  In reality, the Church is distinct from its members, just as a corporation is distinct from its employees. The members are an essential part of the Church (the matter), but they are not identical with the Church.
 
The Roman Catholic Church is a visible society – a perfect society - comprised of the local church of Rome and the diocese throughout the world in union with it.  This visible organization is the subject in which the four marks adhere, and it is the object of the promises that Christ made to his Church.  When Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church, He didn’t mean there will always be baptized individuals somewhere in the world who profess the true faith.  He meant the visible ecclesiastical  society He founded would never defect.  And as Franzelin explains, the church of Rome and the episcopal sees throughout the world in union with it are indefectible even when there is no Pope.  The reason this organization is indefectible even when there is no Pope, is because, contrary to what NO Watch claims in one of their articles, the efficient cause of indefectibility is not the Pope, it is the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost remains with the Church even during interregnums.
 
The Protestants of course deny that the visible organization based on Rome is the true Church.  They maintain that the Pope and bishops in union with him defected from the Faith years ago and were ipso facto deposed, after which, the Roman Catholic Church become a New Church that teaches a New Religion.  Sound familiar?
 
Moreover, Protestant ecclesiology rejects the very idea that the true Church is a visible indefectible organization, and instead defines the Church according to their (incomplete) definition of members of the Church. The Westminster Confession, for example, defines "the visible Catholic Church" as "those who profess the true religion and their children."  What is missing from this definition of the Church is unity of government, and what is missing from this definition if it applies to members of the Church, is “submission to legitimate pastors” – both of which are also missing from DL’s definition of the Church/members. 
 
According to this Protestant ecclesiology, it doesn’t matter what group or sect a person belongs to. As long as he “professes the true religion” he is part of the body of the visible Catholic Church.  Put differently, what the Protestants deny is that being a member of the visible organization commonly known as the Roman Catholic Church is necessary to be a member of the “visible Catholic Church." 
 
Here is how the 19^th century Calvanist scholar, William Cunningham, describes the difference between the Protestant and Catholic definition of the Church:
 

The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, William, Cunningham, 1862:
.
 THE questions as to what the church is, what is the proper definition of it, and what are its qualities, prerogatives, marks, or distinguishing characters … enter very deeply and influentially into the controversy between the Church of Rome and the Protestant churches…
.
The substance of the Romish doctrine upon this general subject is, that Christ has established on earth the church as a distinct society, which is not only to continue always indefectible or without ceasing to exist, but to stand out visibly and palpably — distinguished from all other societies, civil or ecclesiastical — that it is not liable to error, but will always continue to promulgate the truth, and the truth alone. When they have proved this, they then try to prove that this one church of Christ, always visible and infallible, must of necessity be in communion with the Church of Rome, the mother and mistress of all churches, and in subjection to the Bishop of Rome, the vicar of Christ and the monarch of His church. …
.
Protestants, while conceding the existence of visible churches, not composed exclusively of elect or believing persons, and even of “a catholic visible church, consisting of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children,” [Westminster Confession] deny that there is anything in Scripture which guarantees the constant existence at all times, or in any one particular country, of an organized ecclesiastical society standing out visibly and palpably to the eyes of men as the true church of Christ;

Do sedevacantists believe the Church is an organized ecclesiastical society that is indefectible and stands out visibly as the true church of Christ, or do they believe “the visible Catholic Church” is the body of those who are baptized and profess the true religion (true faith), regardless of which group or sect they belong to?  Obviously, it is the latter.  That is because Sedevacantist ecclesiology and Protestant ecclesiology are identical.
 
The Calvanist scholar goes on to explain another feature of Protestant ecclesiology that differs from Catholic ecclesiology:
 

The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, William, Cunningham, 1862:
.
“Subjection to lawful pastors, and to the Pope, as Christ's vicar, form, as we have seen, a component part of the Popish definition of the church. But Protestants regarded not only the Pope, but even the lawful, i.e., regular pastors, as not being an essential feature of the church, of such intrinsic and paramount importance as to form an indispensable part of the standard by which to settle at once and conclusively, in all circuмstances, whether a particular society of professing Christians did or did not form a church of Christ.”

Do Sedevacantists believe legitimate pastors are an indispensable part of the standard by which to judge if a group of professing Christians are part of Christ’s church?  How could they when every Sedevacantist sect lacks a legitimate pastor, and the only Church that can possibly have them (since legitimate Pastors are those appointed by the Pope) is the universal Church based in Rome, which they claim is a false Church?
 
Another defect in DL’s definition of “the visible Catholic Church” is that "baptized persons who profess that true faith" doesn't suffice to make the Church visible, in the Catholic understanding of visibility.
 
When we say the Church is visible, we don’t simply mean its members can be seen (material visibility).  We mean the visible organization can be known (formally visible) as the true Church.  What makes the Church formally visible are the four marks, of which the members only constitute one (i.e., catholicity).  The four marks do not abide in the members; they are properties of the visible society as such.  Fr. Berry explains:
 

Fr. Berry: “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.” (Fr. Berry, The Church of Christ).

 
Apostolicity, which is the mark that most clearly identifies the true Church, requires a hierarchy consisting of a body of legitimate pastors (bishops with ordinary jurisdiction), which form one juridical person with the apostolic college.  Now, since there is only one “organized ecclesiastical society standing out visibly and palpably to the eyes of men” that can possibly have a legitimate hierarchy, it follows that there is only one organized ecclesiastical society that can be formally visible as the true Church. And that organized ecclesiastical is the one that is comprised of the local church of Rome and the diocese throughout the world in union with it. 
 
Protestants ecclesiology doesn’t deny that the body of men who make up the Church are materially visible.  This material visibility is what they mean by the visible Catholic Church.  What the Protestant doctrine of the “invisible Church” denies, is that the Church is a distinct visible organization that can be known (formal visible) as the true Church of Christ. They realized vey quickly that if they admitted this notion of visibility, it would prove that their sects are not part of the true Church.  Let us again hear from the Calvanist scholar:
 

The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, William, Cunningham, 1862:
.
“The reason which led Protestants to give prominence to this idea of the invisible church as now explained, was, that the Church of Rome maintains visibility, as including external organization, to be an essential property of the Church, and founds important conclusions upon this position. If visibility be an essential property of the church, then it would seem to follow that a public and unbroken succession of a continuous society from the time of the apostles must have existed upon earth, and been distinctly traceable as the true church of Christ; and on this position they have always laboured to rest much in establishing the claims of the Church of Rome. Besides, it is chiefly by means of the statements made in Scripture which Protestants think applicable only to the whole number of the elect viewed as one body, or the invisible church, that Papists expect to be able to establish their peculiar views of the dignity, authority, and infallibility of the church as visible."

 
It is also worth noting that the Protestants don’t exclude the possibility that members of the Roman Catholic Church could also be part of the true invisible Church.  If a member of the Roman Catholic Church professes the true religion, or true faith, the Protestants would consider him to be just as much a member of the true invisible Church as those who belong externally to one of their sects. 
 
In light of this ecuмenical aspect of their ecclesiology, let us see how the Sedevacantist, John Lane, describes the Catholic Church and who he says belong to it.  He begins by saying the Catholic Church, consider as “the body of traditional Catholics, is one in the profession of the same faith by all of her members; she is one in the sacrificial and sacramental worship her members offer and assist in offering; she is one in her laws which they seek to obey.” 
 
What this “body of traditional Catholics” that Mr. Lane identifies as the Catholic Church is missing, however, is the all-important unity of government, which, coincidentally, is the same thing that is missing from Protestant's definition of the "visible Catholic Church." 
 
Mr. Lane then offers the following criticism of the “Conciliar Church,” which is what he calls the visible society that is comprised of the church of Rome and the diocese throughout the world in union with it:
 
John Lane: “it is a plain fact that any “body” which consists of the Conciliar hierarchy and laity, as well as the traditional Catholic clergy and laity, has no unity whatsoever, in Faith or Charity. We do not share the official beliefs of the Conciliar Church or the actual beliefs of most of the members of the Conciliar Church and we do not share in the same sacraments and we are not subject to the same pastors. Their laymen will no more assist at our traditional Masses than we will assist at their Modernist ones.”
 
Now, if the “conciliar Church” lacks unity of faith, which is an essential aspect of the mark of oneness, it follows that the Conciliar Church is a false Church, since the true Church has all four marks.  Moreover, since the marks are interconnected, if one mark is lacking, they are all lacing.  So, if Mr. Lane were right, the “Conciliar Church would have no marks.  Of course, the same is true for “the body of traditional Catholics” that Mr. Lane identified above as “the Catholic Churchm,” since it lacks unity of government.
 
But here's the important part.  In spite of the fact that Mr. Lane believes the Conciliar Church lacks the four marks, notice who he includes a belonging to the Catholic Church:
 
John Lane: “the Catholic Church consists of the traditional Catholics, as well as those of the faithful still mired in the Novus Ordo who continue to profess the true Faith.”
 
You see, according to Protestant and Sedevacantist ecclesiology, it doesn't matter what sect or false Church a person belongs to.  As long as they “professes the true faith” they consider them  part of the Catholic Church. 
 
The problem with this ecuмenical "subsistit in" ecclesiology, is that it constitutes a denial of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which itself an article of faith that all Catholics are bound to believe with divine and Catholic faith. 
 
The irony is that the extremely liberal sedevacantist ecclesiology that Mr. Lane articulated above is so heretical, that those who profess it do not meet their own definition of a member of the Catholic Church (i.e., one who professes the true faith).

Do you agree with Pius XII that those who are separated in government cannot be living in the unity of the body?  No, you believe those who are separated in government are the body, as long as they have been baptized and "profess the true faith."

Doesn't matter what Pius XII said because V2 clarified that those who are "spiritually" part of the mystical body can be saved (even if not visibly united).  SVs "desire" to be part of (your definition) of the Church, in good faith, but believe they can't (momentarily).  You can't condemn SVs just like the V2 church doesn't condemn good-willed Hindus, muslims, pagans, etc.


Actually, since you argue that Pius XII's definition is correct, you are denying multiple V2 beliefs, which puts you at odds with the "government of new-rome" the visible Church today.  So by your own definition, you are also outside of the visible V2 church. 

RT, you can't have it both ways...Tradition is at odds with V2.  It's one or the other. 

Doesn't matter what Pius XII said because V2 clarified that those who are "spiritually" part of the mystical body can be saved (even if not visibly united).  

Here's what Vatican II teaches:

They cannot be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or remain in it (cf. LG 14).

Sedevacantists know the Catholic Church was founded by Christ, yet they refuse to enter it.   Why?  Because they they think they already belong to it, since 1) they define he Church as "the baptized who profess the true faith" and 2) they (mistakenly) believe they meet both those condition. 

 Actually, since you argue that Pius XII's definition is correct, you are denying multiple V2 beliefs, which puts you at odds with the "government of new-rome" the visible Church today.  So by your own definition, you are also outside of the visible V2 church.    

Quote the teaching of Vatican II you are referring to and let's see what it says.

RT, you can't have it both ways...Tradition is at odds with V2.  It's one or the other.

According to Tradition, the Church is a visible society with four marks united under a single hierarchy, not a body of individuals who have been baptized and profess the true faith, regardless of which sect they belong to.   It is not I, but you who has departed - and departed VERY FAR - from Tradition.

RT, the docuмents of V2 regularly contradict each other and also the doctrine of EENS.  If the below quotes apply to protestants, they also apply to SVs.  Hence, both can be saved, which is contrary to Pius XII, and which you, as part of the V2 church, must believe and put into practice.  Therefore, your condemnations of SVs is contrary to V2.  Here are just a few quotes:

Decree on Ecuмenism: Unitatis Redintegratio

"The children who are born into these Communities, and who grow up believing in Christ, cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. ...it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."
 
 "Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ."
 
 "The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation."
 
 "It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."
 

Here's what Vatican II teaches:


Sedevacantists know the Catholic Church was founded by Christ, yet they refuse to enter it.  Why?  Because they they think they already belong to it, since 1) they define he Church as "the baptized who profess the true faith" and 2) they (mistakenly) believe they meet both those condition.

Quote the teaching of Vatican II you are referring to and let's see what it says.



According to Tradition, the Church is a visible society with four marks united under a single hierarchy, not a body of individuals who have been baptized and profess the true faith, regardless of which sect they belong to.  It is not I, but you who has departed - and departed VERY FAR - from Tradition.

I am not a Sede.

but they aren’t refusing to enter in it. They do in fact believe they are in it.  In one sense it’s similar to a lot of Protestants or the Eastern Orthodox, except unlike these the sede denies no dogmas.  Thus not heretics.  At most you could get them with pure schism, but presumably they’d only be culpable for this based on the line you cited in V2 if they knew sedevacantism wasn’t the church but didn’t leave anyway 

I don’t understand the point of this conversation. All you’re doing, RomanTheo, is saving one aspect of the indefectibility of Mother Church while destroying another. It is true that Sedevacantist ecclesiology is extremely problematic. I don’t blame them though. The situation we are in was never envisioned before.

Your approach doesn’t exactly solve the issues. Yes, you retain Traditional ecclesiology, but you destroy indefectibility in another way by allowing that the Church has been teaching previously infallibly condemned heresies in Her authentic magisterium, promoting blasphemies & sacrileges universally, instigating pernicious disciplines & liturgical worship universally, and leading hundreds of millions of souls to hell by the aforementioned and many others means.

The clown in the Vatican and his post-Conciliar predecessors of unhappy memory are objectively assassinators of souls.

There is a way to retain both Traditional ecclesiology and indefectibility in Faith: Msgr. des Lauriers’ Cassiciacuм thesis or certain variations of Msgr. Lefebvre’s Conciliar Church theory/eclipse thesis. Your Conciliar conservatism is not one of them.

They refuse to enter the Roman Catholic Church, which is the visible society based on Rome. 

  You keep ignoring what V2 says, which contradicts your above statement.

I read your response, and will try to respond later, but it's complete horseshit.

To the main point, your accusation of DL's definition of the requirements for membership in the Church, has nowhere been proven and I accuse you of slander.

Please cite the actual defined dogma that DL has rejected in his definition or retract your slander.  You spend paragraphs of incredibly weak arguments full of holes trying to back up your slander, but your arguments and paragraphs are not the Magisterium.

I actually disagree with DL's definition, adding one additional criterion, and I will not speak of any distinction between a "visible" and (implied) invisible Church, since the two are co-extensive.  Nevertheless, there's a lot of theological disagreement and a range of opinions on this subject that the Church has not yet condemned, so I would not have the temerity to accuse DL of heresy.