I like some of what you said here, but how do explain what Vatican I taught? It said that there would be pastors and teachers to the end?

Again, I gave you the understanding of the term expressed by Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I.

Yes, there are two aspects of indefectibility.  I bolded and put (1) and (2) below ...

From Catholic Encyclopedia:
This, ultimately, is what the SV vs. R&R debate boils down to (not an argument about the "5 Opinions").

R&R claim that SVism leads to a defection of the Church by virtue of the loss of (1) above, the Apostolic hierarchy.
SVs claim that R&R leads to a defection of the Church by virtue of the loss of (2) above, the Church's essential characteristics, or notes.

R&R hold that the Church's not-strictly-infallible Magisterium can go entirely corrupt, that the Public Worship of the Church can become corrupt, that the canon of the saints can become corrupted, etc. ... but so long as the small body of dogma remains in tact, there is the Church and there are the Catholic hierarchy.  Not more than this small body of dogma is protected and guided and guaranteed by the Holy Ghost.

SVs point out that, rightly, that the hierarchy is not "lost" due to interregna, due to Antipopes, due to usurpation of episcopal sees (97-99% of episcopal sees were usurped by Arians during that crisis), but that this degree of corruption is tantamount to the Church losing its essential characteristics.  Archbishop Lefebvre publicly stated that the Conciliar Church lacks the Marks/Notes of the One True Church, i.e. lacks the Church's essential characteristics, those by which the Catholic Church can be identified as the One True Church founded by Christ.

If the changes in the Conciliar Church are merely accidental, then R&R have zero excuse for not remaining in communion with and submission to the hierarchy.  But if the changes are essential, and change the essential characteristics of the Church, then if the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church, it has defected.

It's much easier to explain that the papacy and many episcopal sees can have been usurped by heretics than to explain how the Church has not changed essentially.  And, if the Church has not changed essentially, then those who have broken from the Church over these accidental concerns are guilty of schism.

There's no way to justify R&R, which is a have your-cake-and-eat-it-too, where they can claim that the essential characteristics of the Church have not changed, but it's still OK to sever communion with and submission to the hierarchy.

We have Vatican I teaching that the See of Peter has never and can never be blemished by error, and a wall of papal teaching that the Magisterium cannot be corrupted.  Trent anathematizes those who claim that the Rites used by the Church can be inducements to impiety, and theologians are unanimous in upholding the Church's disciplinary infallibility (which includes the Rite of Mass).  If the majority of the Catholic Magisterium can go corrupt, why were the Old Catholics wrong, why were the Eastern Orthodox wrong, and why were the Protestants, who all made the same claim, that the Catholic Church had veered from true Christian doctrine?

If the Conciliar Church is (and can at any given time become) hopelessly corrupt (to the point that Catholics cannot co-exist with it), what is it even good for?  How can you try to convince Old Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants that it's the True Church of Christ, and the only sure guaranteed of sound doctrine (the standard Catholic apologetic)?  "You must join the Church and stay separated from it at the same time."  It's almost like R&R have become "separated brethren" of the Catholic hierarchy and their position bolsters Vatican II ecclesiology, which holds that there are divisions within the Church, while other things united its members.  While R&R are separated from the "Vicar of Christ", they hold enough things in common to continue to claim that they're both Catholic and are in the same Church.

R&R is an abhorrent non-Catholic trainwreck, and those who adhere to it, claiming that the Catholic Church has become corrupt, that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church, and yet remain outside of it, are in grave danger of losing their faith and their souls.  And the scariest part is that they don't even recognize how non-Catholic the whole thing is.

Angelus,

Mis-definition of the term? Again, I gave you the understanding of the term expressed by Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I. So, in other words, you are saying that Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I "mis-defined" indefectibility. Is that what you are saying?

As I indicated in my response to Pax, the Arian crisis does not rebut my argument. St. Athanasius, St. Basil, and St. Gregory - just some examples - were bishops with "governing authority," and of the hierarchical "governing body" of the Church, opposed to the Arian heresy.

How does St. Augustine say the institutional Church can fail? Perhaps he agrees with me.

There needs to be some clarification between you and I here. You say that to say that the institutional Church can never fail is "belied." Your example of the Arian crisis doesn't support that. In any event, by saying "belied," you are saying that it can fail or defect, yes? If you are, I agree with you as to that being an end times phenomenon, but it is limited to the "consummation of the age," an end times phenomena; it has not occurred prior to Vatican II.

It appears to me that your position differs from that of Pax, and Lad, who argue that the Church remains "indefectible" as she expressed it and understood it prior to V2 - which, as I have argued, doesn't square with facts/reality.

Can you clarify? It appears you are dismissing the understanding of Piux IX and the Fathers of Vatican I to be wrong in principle as to the indefectibility of the Church, since you claim that understanding of "indefectibility" was "belied" by the Arian crisis of 1650 so years ago. I say that the Pius IX and Fathers of Vatican I understanding is wrong only in the sense that it is subject to an end times, sui generis phenomenon that they were not addressing, and which is being revealed and made clear during the Great Apostasy, and  part of the "mystery of iniquity" that has reached its climax, or very close to it.

DR, I will try to explain, following Augustine's description of the bi-partite nature of the institutional Church of Earth. He discusses this in his commentary on Tychonius (the Donatist) in The City of God.

1. There are two ways of understanding "the Church:"

(a) The Apparent Church: This is the Church as the institutional, pilgrim Church on Earth. This institutional body is composed of two parts: (1) faithful Catholics and (2) the false brethren. This Church is an imperfect mixture until the end of time. It is described in the parable of the Wheat and the Tares.

(b) The Real Church: There is the True Church as the Mystical Body of Christ: That mystical body is composed of three parts: (1) Church Triumphant, (2) Church Militant, and (3) Church Suffering. These are only the "faithful Catholics." The False Brethren are not included in this definition of the Church. This is "the Church" as referenced by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis that I quoted above.

2. The institutional, pilgrim Church in Earth, by its very nature, has never been and can never be "indefectible." This is because it is made of one part that has already "defected" from the True Faith. That part that has "defected" is called, again, the "false brethren," the counterfeit Catholics, the Whore. The Apocalypse is all about the final battle between those members of the institutional, pilgrim Church that are "faithful Catholics" (i.e., the Immaculate Bride of Christ) and those members of the institutional, pilgrim Church that are "false brethren," (i.e., the Whore that rides the Beast).

3. What is necessarily "indefectible," precisely because it stays faithful to Our Lord Jesus in his absence, is the True Church, the members known as the Immaculate Bride, the faithful Catholics. We can recognize those faithful members who are True Members (not False Brethren) of the True Church because those members have not "defected" from the True teachings of the Divine Master and his legitimate successors. The Modernists, for example, have "defected" from the True Faith and are therefore not members of the True Church, even though they claim to be members of the institutional, pilgrim Church on earth.

4. The Church dogma of "indefectibility of the Church" has as its subject matter not the institutional Church, which includes the False Brethren. Instead, the dogma references only those members of the institutional Church that have not defected from the True Faith. The purpose of the dogma is to identify the distinguishing mark of the True Catholic, that he remains faithful to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostolic Tradition.

5. So, the fact that infiltrators and heretics make up the major part of the hierarchy of the institutional Church does not contradict the dogma of "indefectibility." Those infiltrators are simply "false brethren" who have always pretended to be Catholics since the Church's origins. Simon Magus is one example. The fact that those "false brethren" act as "wolves in sheep's clothing" does not impact "indefectibility."

6. The dogma of indefectibility would only be contradicted if all laymen and clergy defected from the True Faith. We have Our Lord's guarantee that that will not happen. Our Lord does not say that the false prophets of the institutional Church (the false Brethren) will not try to deceive us. In fact, he tells us the opposite. Those false members will defect and lead many into perdition.

And I provided this quote from Pius XII from Mystici Corporis. Here it is again:

22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

Using Pius XII's definition of "the Church" in the quote above, how can you not say that "the Church remains indefectible." The true Church, identified with the "mystical Body of Christ," by definition of Pius XII, can never "defect" from "the true faith." Indefectibility is the mark the True Church allowing us to distinguish it from its Counterfeit.

Pius XII's definition of "the Church" requires that that "Church" be composed ONLY of those who "profess the true faith." Therefore, as long as Catholics are alive who "profess the true faith," the true Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, will exist on Earth and it will always, by definition, have this characteristic of "indefectibility."

You, on the other hand, don't understand what I am saying because you seem to think "the Church" referenced in the dogmatic proposition of "indefectibility," can be composed of members who do not profess "the true faith." If that is what you believe, then your belief directly contradicts what Pius XII says about "the Church" in the above quote.

But I think I understand what you are trying to say. You are using a different conception and definition of "the Church." You are thinking of "the Church" as the institutional, pilgrim Church on Earth which consists of both those who "profess the true faith" AND the "false brethren," the heretics.

That is the conception of the institutional, pilgrim Church on Earth described by Augustine in the City of God. It is bi-partite. It is imperfect, moving eschatologically toward perfection in Salvation History. But that institutional, pilgrim Church on Earth can never be properly described as "indefectible" because it always contains a significant part of it that has already "defected" from the true Faith, specifically the heretics that masquerade as Catholics but are not in fact Catholic.

So the dogma of "indefectibility of the Church" cannot possibly be referencing that Augustinian conception of "the Church," the institutional, pilgrim Church, containing both the true faithful and the false brethren. Instead, the dogma of "indefectibility" must logically be referencing the conception/definition of "the Church" as described by Pius XII in the quote above.

Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecuмenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head.”

We declare, moreover, that, whether one considers its existence or its constitution, the Church of Christ is an everlasting and indefectible society, and that, after it, no more complete nor more perfect economy of salvation is to be hoped for in this world. For, to the very end of the world the pilgrims of this earth are to be saved through Christ. Consequently, his Church, the only society of salvation, will last until the end of the world ever unchangeable and unchanged in its constitution. Therefore, although the Church is growing—and We wish that it may always grow in faith and charity for the upbuilding of Christ's body—although it evolves in a variety of ways according to the changing times and circuмstances in which it is constantly displaying activity, nevertheless, it remains unchangeable in itself and in the constitution it received from Christ. Therefore, Christ's Church can never lose its properties and its qualities, its sacred teaching authority, priestly office, and governing body, so that through his visible body, Christ may always be the way, the truth, and the life for all men.



Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's College. The Church Teaches: Docuмents of the Church in English Translation . TAN Books. Kindle Edition.

Does Pius IX in Etsi Multi say that the Church will have defected if a pope and the bishops in union with him teach error in an ecuмenical council?

Do the Fathers of Vatican I say that the Church’s indefectibility entails the Church having a hierarchal “governing body” until the end of time?