CathInfo.com

Your error is that you falsely define the Church as the pope.  Or those in new-rome as the Church.  Or some combination thereof.

**"Upon this rock I will build my Church." This rock is the visible foundation of the Church. We live in a rambley, old world, stone house. If we were to separate the house from its foundations, the house would collapse in a heap and be no more; because the house and its foundation are one.

You are personally defining what "the gates of hell shall not prevail" means, and then applying it to the V2 church.  But Christ was not that specific.  He never promised that the Church would always remain in rome, or that the pope would always remain orthodox.  Theologians for centuries have said that the idea that a pope could not become a heretic is a "pious belief".  Even they knew that such an idea is not a doctrine. 

** I'm defining it how it has always been defined: "Upon this rock (papacy) I will build my Church. And the gates of hell, will not prevail against it." Prevail: to be greater in strength or influence; to triumph over. The meaning is clear Pax - the gates of hell will not be greater in strength than the Papal Church (the fountain of grace) - even though hell will do its best to triumph over it.

The number of people who stayed true to Christ during His passion was a handful.  11 of the 12 apostles fled.  There's no doctrine which says that the Church could not succuмb to heresy to a very high %, if not most.  And that +ABL and a few hundred priests around the world would be all the remnant who resisted V2 and the apostasy.  There's NOTHING CONTRARY TO THE FAITH in this idea.  In fact, these few hundred Trad clerics, as a % of the whole cleric world, would be akin to the handful of faithful who remained faithful to Christ.

** I agree. What you have painted in broad strokes resembles what happened during the Arian heresy. My only objection is the use of Vatican II, and the implication of the word "remnant" in your line: "and a few hundred priests around the world would be the remnant who resisted V2 and the apostasy." Modernism did not start with Vatican II and Vatican II in itself as a council, was perfectly legit. Let us keep it to resisting 'Modernism' (because one can adhere to Modernism without necessarily being an apostate). As such, we must be careful about using the word 'remnant' as if we and a handful of others were now the Church. There are many Catholics who interpret V2 in light of tradition and ignore the abuses and false interpretations. They are certainly not apostates.

We also need to qualify what it means to be faithful to Christ. Christ is the Church; that visible Roman mystical body governed by the head, the Pope, the vicar of Christ. To be a member of this mystical body - to be faithful to it - we must stay united to it.

Your entire argument for V2 rests on your false opinion that "God wouldn't allow V2 to be heretical".  Or that "God wouldn't allow the Church to fall into such disarray".  But scholars say that the Arian heresy engulfed 95% of catholics and that was long, long ago. 

** That's not my argument. I am saying that despite this 'disarray' within the Church caused by Modernism, the deposit of faith has not been touched. The ruling authority of the Pope, Cardinals and bishops is not effected, and the divine 'fountain of grace', eternal and indefectible, continues on. I pay no heed to the smoke and mirrors caused by these Judas magicians within the Church and simply carry on living my Catholic life, of old, as if they weren't there, just like the Holy family did even though the Temple priests were corrupt and teaching erroneous man-made laws.

The historical parallels to V2 are all there; it's just V2 had the new dimension - a string of heretical popes.  Or a string of non-popes who pretended to be catholic.  Either way, this is a unique thing of history.  But there's NOTHING IN THE FAITH WHICH SAYS THIS CAN'T HAPPEN.  You (and many others) just DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT the possibility.  Your entire position rests on the "pious belief" that a pope cannot become a heretic.  Or that a non-pope can't sneak in and play pretend. 

** There is no precedent of a Pope being condemned as a heretic in over 2000 years of its history. Clearly, during the Arian crisis, Pope Liberius condemned St. Athanasius and signed an equivocal statement which could be interpreted either in an orthodox OR an Arian way - so to all appearances this Pope was a heretic - however, as soon as he was free from duress, this Pope came out clearly in favour of orthodoxy.

Heresy, as we know, comprises of matter (a belief contrary to a formal teaching of the Church) and form (pertinacity in the will).

It has been said that Pope Honorius was a heretic, however, this is not true. He was never accused of being a heretic during his lifetime but after his death he was condemned for not stepping in to stop a heresy and thus was considered guilty of its spread. He was not condemned as actually believing or teaching the heresy in question.


But our Faith isn't based on "pious beliefs".  We have to accept what is.  We have to accept that God's ways are mysterious.  And many times unpredictable.

** Exactly Pax, exactly.

If the mere continuity of bishops or ecclesiastical structures were sufficient to define the Church, could the Anglican Church under Henry VIII still be called Catholic despite its formal rupture with the Faith? By the same logic, can the Conciliar Church—having formally embraced and propagated error—truly claim to be the Catholic Church, even while asserting apostolic succession? One must examine not human appearances, but fidelity to the Faith, for it is the Faith that alone renders the Church both One and Apostolic.