Indefectibility: Game Over

[Livenotonevil]

http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson12.htm

I also mentioned the Church's permanency.

I think you are missing what the Baltimore Catechism is saying, but allow me to quote Vatican 1 for you.

"3. To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received.

4. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the Churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59].

5. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God's help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions.

6. 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.

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60].

7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

8. But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.

9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."

[John Lamb]

Yes, it's a beautiful text.

I included that earlier when I said there's only one place where I can receive the true preaching of the Incarnation and the Trinity, i.e. the Catholic faith. This isn't trivial. There was a time when Arianism nearly made the true faith extinct. The fact that so many preachers in Catholic churches today are bad does not change the fact that I can pick up the Catechism and get the true doctrine of the faith, not Arian heresy or any other heresy. But perhaps you're referring to less central doctrines like the death penalty, etc. Well to think that the Church has defected because a notoriously ambiguous speaker like Francis has made an ambiguous amendment to the Catechism – is an overreaction. It's not like the Eastern "Orthodox" who clearly and unequivocally deny the Holy Spirit's procession from the Son, or the indissolubility of marriage.

[Quaremerepulisti]

Thanks Qaure, for this full account of Qaurism as it currently stands.

A couple of questions if I may:

1. Is it really the case that Francis's amendment to the catechism is incompatible with previous teaching? I thought he phrased it in such a way as to avoid stating that capital punishment is, in itself, wrong or evil; I took the claim merely to be that now we *ought* not to do it.

I've looked at this in great detail and tried to see if I could make this compatible with previous teaching.  The CDF letter to the Bishops, unfortunately, clinches the case.

http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802b.html

6. In this same prospective, Pope Francis has reaffirmed that "today capital punishment is unacceptable, however serious the condemned's crime may have been."[8] The death penalty, regardless of the means of execution, "entails cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment."[9] Furthermore, it is to be rejected "due to the defective selectivity of the criminal justice system and in the face of the possibility of judicial error."[10] It is in this light that Pope Francis has asked for a revision of the formulation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty in a manner that affirms that "no matter how serious the crime that has been committed, the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and the dignity of the person."[11]

"Cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment" and an "attack on the inviolability and the dignity of the person" are in themselves wrong and evil.

2. What practical consequences follow from the belief that the Churches are not indefectible? I think it would be intolerable to remain a member of an organisation predicated on a false claim such as this. Should we find a religious body that makes no exclusive claims to absolute truth? Personally I have a soft spot for Quakers.

It just means that you don't accept the man in white (or any other person) as having the final word.  The SSPX has already been doing this for decades.

3. I may have misremembered this but I thought it was at one point your position that if the whole business of the papacy and indefectability turned out to be false, Judaism, rather than any other Christian denomination was the best bet. Was this ever your view?

Possibly.  Right now I'm just dealing with the fact that religious claims to authority, like any others, aren't self-legitimating.

[Livenotonevil]

Yes, it's a beautiful text.

I included that earlier when I said there's only one place where I can receive the true preaching of the Incarnation and the Trinity, i.e. the Catholic faith. This isn't trivial. There was a time when Arianism nearly made the true faith extinct. The fact that so many preachers in Catholic churches today are bad does not change the fact that I can pick up the Catechism and get the true doctrine of the faith, not Arian heresy or any other heresy. But perhaps you're referring to less central doctrines like the death penalty, etc. Well to think that the Church has defected because a notoriously ambiguous speaker like Francis has made an ambiguous amendment to the Catechism – is an overreaction. It's not like the Eastern "Orthodox" who clearly and unequivocally deny the Holy Spirit's procession from the Son, or the indissolubility of marriage.

Called it. Some Catholic apologist would bring this point up, as if it's the end all be all point to be made in proving the legitimacy of their church.

Too bad it disproves it.

https://shamelessorthodoxy.com/2016/09/17/divorce-remarriage-in-the-latin-west-a-forgotten-history/
https://shamelessorthodoxy.com/2017/05/09/divorce-remarriage-in-the-latin-west-an-addendum/

Now we wait for the argument "No, the Popes back then weren't right, the Popes later were right," including the implicit premise of "The Popes back then were right, which is why we don't listen to the Popes now."

Really epistemologically certain of your church, aren't ya?

As if the 19th Century was the end all be all outpouring of the Holy Spirit, from which point nobody may question in light of historical contradiction.

[John Lamb]

https://shamelessorthodoxy.com/2016/09/17/divorce-remarriage-in-the-latin-west-a-forgotten-history/
https://shamelessorthodoxy.com/2017/05/09/divorce-remarriage-in-the-latin-west-an-addendum/

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm

Really epistemologically certain of your church, aren't ya?

Since you quoted Matthew 16:18 you should know that it's not my Church, but Christ's.

[mikemac]

Quaremare,

You've missed out the fourth option - that's it's all over.

Vatican II is the revolt, and the one who holds - the Pope - has been taken out of the way.  The only condition required before the Second Coming, according to St Paul, is the appearance of the antichrist.

It's in the Creed after all. Christ will come again.  Why not now?

Wrong.  The fullness of the Gentiles has to come in before the Jews convert, so that at the name of Jesus all knees shall bend.

[Stubborn]

It is evident that indefectibility, as the doctrine is commonly understood in the West, is false.  I used to be a semi-trad but that position, too, has been undeniably empirically falsified.

You have it wrong, not surprising for a "semi-trad".

First, you need to start out with the Church being indefectible as your unfailing foundation, if you would do that, you would soon be faced with the reality that most of the rest of your post is full of falsities and errors.

You see, your foundational idea that the doctrine of the Church's indefectibility is inherently false, is altogether wrong. With this being the case, there really is no hope of having a fruitful exchange. Just wanted to note that fact right out of the gate.

Next, there most assuredly are no "semi-trads" in God's plan for salvation. Or do you actually suppose that even your best friend would let you be a "semi-friend"....."Some of what you say is true, but some are lies." Honestly, how far do you think that will go with anyone, let alone God?   

"...No matter how much tragedy with which history is strewn, Christ moves towards His glorious triumph. With His resurrection was the announcement that He would have his victory, when he emerged from the tomb, He proved that there was no force, no power greater than He.

And He proved that if He was invincible, then that which He would establish is also invincible, namely His Church.

It really does not matter therefore that throughout history the Church suffer terrific blows, that it at times – and these times almost have always prevailed – that the Church suffer it's terrible embarrassments, it's setbacks.

Despite all this, despite all appearances and despite whatever losses, Christ is triumphing in the Church and He is proving His power, His invincibility and He is succeeding in doing what He came to the world to achieve, and God the Father is fulfilling the purposes of His creation. If it were not so, He would never have created anything to begin with. If it could be, that Almighty God could set in motion anything out of which He could not draw whatever He wished, then He would never had done anything like that and He indeed would not be infinite in the first place...." - Fr. Wathen

[Michael Wilson]

I believe that the end of the occupation of Jerusalem by the Gentiles, and the reconquest of it by the Jews, marks the end of the time of the gentiles (1967). At least according to Fr. Benjamin M. Sanchez in his commentary on the Apocalypse.

[Kirin]

Be careful with this line of thought Quare. Push ahead too far and it's akin from jumping from the frying pan into the fryer. I'm not referencing a hell there, but rather how deeply uncomfortable and unsettling for an extended period of time alterations in ones worldview can be, and you sound very close.

[Jayne]

What comes to my mind is this passage from the sixth chapter of the Gospel according to St. John:


[66] And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. [67] After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. [68] Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? [69] And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. [70] And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.

[Livenotonevil]

I believe that the end of the occupation of Jerusalem by the Gentiles, and the reconquest of it by the Jews, marks the end of the time of the gentiles (1967). At least according to Fr. Benjamin M. Sanchez in his commentary on the Apocalypse.

I find it kind of scary that Israel is now Jewish again. Not out of anti-Semitism or out of a dislike of Jews, but because it fits what the Church Fathers have described in terms of the Apocalypse. Perhaps we are inching closer to it, or maybe it's a false flag by Satan.

[Kirin]

I find it kind of scary that Israel is now Jewish again. Not out of anti-Semitism or out of a dislike of Jews, but because it fits what the Church Fathers have described in terms of the Apocalypse. Perhaps we are inching closer to it, or maybe it's a false flag by Satan.

Don't they have to destroy the Dome of the Rock first to make way for the new Temple before all of that?

Israel may have a good track record with fighting Arab armies, but I don't see them rushing out to try that one.

[Quaremerepulisti]

First, you need to start out with the Church being indefectible as your unfailing foundation, if you would do that, you would soon be faced with the reality that most of the rest of your post is full of falsities and errors.

According to you and your hero Fr. Wathen, the "indefectible" Church could promulgate and did promulgate the "Great Sacrilege" of the Novus Ordo Missae.  A defected Church?  No because, well, uh, Vatican I's Papal Infallibility wasn't at issue here.  You have no credibility on this issue.  You actually believe in a defected Church no matter how much you preach an indefectible Church as your "unfailing foundation".

[awkwardcustomer]

Quaremare,

You've missed out the fourth option - that's it's all over.

Vatican II is the revolt, and the one who holds - the Pope - has been taken out of the way.  The only condition required before the Second Coming, according to St Paul, is the appearance of the antichrist.

It's in the Creed after all. Christ will come again.  Why not now?

Wrong.  The fullness of the Gentiles has to come in before the Jews convert, so that at the name of Jesus all knees shall bend.

How about - the fullness of the Gentiles comes in on Judgement Day, when the last of the Gentiles are separated into sheep and goats?  And then the Jews convert?

Do you reject the idea that Vatican II is the revolt warned about by St Paul?

[Miriam_M]

We're not supposed to directly link Fr. Ripperger's audio sermons on YouTube, but a search there is easy.  One need only plug in

Fr Ripperger theological virtues faith YouTube

and

^ [the same] but substitute hope for faith

I just listened to them within the past few days, followed by, of course, the one on charity -- the one most misunderstood of the theological virtues.  In one or both of the above, he characterizes indefectibility as the permanence and reliability of what is essential about the Church. 

There's nothing in the understanding of any thoroughly traditionally educated and formed priest (such as he) that refers to spiritual perfection of the members and/or of the leaders as an aspect, sign, or proof of indefectibility.  Even though in common English understanding, "indefectible" connotes perfection, its theological definition is more narrow. "Lack of defect" generally means literally that, but to what characteristic of Catholicism does that refer?  New Advent further expounds: 

Term
INDEFECTIBILITY

Definition
Imperishable duration of the Church and her immutability until the end of time. The First Vatican Council declared that the Church possesses "an unconquered stability" and that, "built on a rock, she will continue to stand until the end of time" (Denzinger 3013, 3056). The Church's indefectibility, therefore, means that she now is and will always remain the institution of salvation, founded by Christ. This affirms that the Church is essentially unchangeable in her teaching, her constitution, and her liturgy. It does not exclude modifications that do not affect her substance, nor does it exclude the decay of individual local churches or even whole dioceses.

Indefectibility of the Church
Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift 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. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard. He established it to proclaim His revelation to the world, and charged it to warn all men that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly. Could the Church, in defining the truths of revelation err in the smallest point, such a charge would be impossible. No body could enforce under such a penalty the acceptance of what might be erroneous. By the hierarchy and the sacraments, Christ, further, made the Church the depositary of the graces of the Passion. Were it to lose either of these, it could no longer dispense to men the treasures of grace.

The gift of indefectibility plainly does not guarantee each several part of the Church against heresy or apostasy. The promise is made to the corporate body. Individual Churches may become corrupt in morals, may fall into heresy, may even apostatize. Thus at the time of the Mohammedan conquests, whole populations renounced their faith; and the Church suffered similar losses in the sixteenth century. But the defection of isolated branches does not alter the character of the main stem. The society of Jesus Christ remains endowed with all the prerogatives bestowed on it by its Founder. Only to One particular Church is indefectibility assured, viz. to the See of Rome. To Peter, and in him to all his successors in the chief pastorate, Christ committed the task of confirming his brethren in the Faith (Luke 22:32); and thus, to the Roman Church, as Cyprian says, "faithlessness cannot gain access" (Epistle 54). The various bodies that have left the Church naturally deny its indefectibility. Their plea for separation rests in each case on the supposed fact that the main body of Christians has fallen so far from primitive truth, or from the purity of Christian morals, that the formation of a separate organization is not only desirable but necessary. Those who are called on to defend this plea endeavour in various ways to reconcile it with Christ's promise. Some, as seen above (VII), have recourse to the hypothesis of an indefectible invisible Church. The Right Rev. Charles Gore of Worcester, who may be regarded as the representative of high-class Anglicanism, prefers a different solution. In his controversy with Canon Richardson, he adopted the position that while the Church will never fail to teach the whole truth as revealed, yet "errors of addition" may exist universally in its current teaching (see Richardson, Catholic Claims, Appendix). Such an explanation deprives Christ's words of all their meaning. A Church which at any period might conceivably teach, as of faith, doctrines which form no part of the deposit could never deliver her message to the world as the message of God. Men could reasonably urge in regard to any doctrine that it might be an "error of addition".

It was said above that one part of the Church's gift of indefectibility lies in her preservation from any substantial corruption in the sphere of morals. This supposes, not merely that she will always proclaim the perfect standard of morality bequeathed to her by her Founder, but also that in every age the lives of many of her children will be based on that sublime model. Only a supernatural principle of spiritual life could bring this about. Man's natural tendency is downwards. The force of every religious movement gradually spends itself; and the followers of great religious reformers tend in time to the level of their environment. According to the laws of unassisted human nature, it should have been thus with the society established by Christ. Yet history shows us that the Catholic Church possesses a power of reform from within, which has no parallel in any other religious organization. Again and again she produces saints, men imitating the virtues of Christ in an extraordinary degree, whose influence, spreading far and wide, gives fresh ardour even to those who reach a less heroic standard. Thus, to cite one or two well-known instances out of many that might be given: St. Dominic and St. Francis of Assisi rekindled the love of virtue in the men of the thirteenth century; St. Philip Neri and St. Ignatius Loyola accomplished a like work in the sixteenth century; St. Paul of the Cross and St. Alphonsus Liguori, in the eighteenth. No explanation suffices to account for this phenomenon save the Catholic doctrine that the Church is not a natural but a supernatural society, that the preservation of her moral life depends, not on any laws of human nature, but on the life-giving presence of the Holy Ghost. The Catholic and the Protestant principles of reform stand in sharp contrast the one to the other. Catholic reformers have one and all fallen back on the model set before them in the person of Christ and on the power of the Holy Ghost to breathe fresh life into the souls which He has regenerated. Protestant reformers have commenced their work by separation, and by this act have severed themselves from the very principle of life. No one of course would wish to deny that within the Protestant bodies there have been many men of great virtues. Yet it is not too much to assert that in every case their virtue has been nourished on what yet remained to them of Catholic belief and practice, and not on anything which they have received from Protestantism as such.

The Continuity Theory
The doctrine of the Church's indefectibility just considered will place us in a position to estimate, at its true value, the claim of the Anglican Church and of the Episcopalian bodies in other English-speaking countries to be continuous with the ancient pre-Reformation Church of England, in the sense of being part of one and the same society. The point to be determined here is what constitutes a breach of continuity as regards a society. It may safely be said that the continuity of a society is broken when a radical change in the principles it embodies is introduced. In the case of a Church, such a change in its hierarchical constitution and in its professed faith suffices to make it a different Church from what it was before. For the societies we term Churches exist as the embodiment of certain supernatural dogmas and of a Divinely-authorized principle of government. when, therefore, the truths previously field to be of faith are rejected, and the principle of government regarded as sacred is repudiated, there is a breach of continuity, and a new Church is formed. In this the continuity of a Church differs from the continuity of a nation. National continuity is independent of forms of government and of beliefs. A nation is an aggregate of families, and so long as these families constitute a self-sufficing social organism, it remains the same nation, whatever the form of government may be. The continuity of a Church depends essentially on its government and its beliefs.

The changes introduced into the English Church at the time of the Reformation were precisely of the character just described. At that period fundamental alterations were made in its hierarchical constitution and in its dogmatic standards. It is not to be determined here which was in the right, the Church of Catholic days or the Reformed Church. It is sufficient if we show that changes were made vitally affecting the nature of the society. It is notorious that from the days of Augustine to those of Warham, every archbishop of Canterbury recognized the pope as the supreme source of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The archbishops themselves could not exercise jurisdiction within their province until they had received papal confirmation. Further, the popes were accustomed to send to England legates a latere, who, in virtue of their legatine authority, whatever their personal status in the hierarchy, possessed a jurisdiction superior to that of the local bishops. Appeals ran from every ecclesiastical court in England to the pope, and his decision was recognized by all as final. The pope, too, exercised the right of excommunication in regard to the members of the English Church. This supreme authority was, moreover, regarded by all as belonging to the pope by Divine right, and not in virtue of merely human institution. When, therefore, this power of jurisdiction was transferred to the king, the alteration touched the constitutive principles of the body and was fundamental in its character. Similarly, in regard to matters of faith, the changes were revolutionary. It will be sufficient to note that a new rule of faith was introduced, Scripture alone being substituted for Scripture and Tradition; that several books were expunged from the Canon of Scripture; that five out of the seven sacraments were repudiated; and that the sacrifices of Masses were declared to be "blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Regarding "proclaiming the perfect standard of morality" (above), and whether she has and does in 2018.  Yes, she has.  Even the lily-livered modern CCC still lists sodomy as a grave sin.  The fact that priests, bishops, and cardinals have violated that and been accomplices to those grave sins and have monstrously abused their power and then lied about that is proof of the fallenness of man, not the fallenness of what is essential about the Church.

It is also proof that these men flunked the "school of holiness" referred to above.  And the fact that they have not been expelled from the school altogether is again proof of the fallenness of their superiors, who have operated out of cowardice and Human Respect.  It is not a sign that the Church has defected; the latter would be a theologically incorrect interpretation.

Regarding the unchangeability of doctrine (EENS and other fave dogmas of some here), the confusing wording and all that the wording implies, both in the V2 documents and in the free-for-all triumphalism of the dissenters from Tradition, post-V2, does not compromise the essential and unchanged teaching that an individual can be saved only through the Catholic Church -- however that happens on the spiritual and practical planes and however irresponsible and heretical theologians want to dance around the unchangeable truths.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=34157

More here:
"Because of its indefectibility the truths revealed by God will always be taught in the Catholic Church. Saint Ambrose said: "The Church is like the moon; it may wane, but never be destroyed; it may be darkened, but it can never disappear." Saint Anselm said that the bark of the Church may be swept by the waves, but it can never sink, because Christ is there. When the Church is in greatest need, Christ comes to its help by miracles, or by raising up saintly men to strengthen and purify it. It is the bark of Peter; when the storm threatens to sink it, the Lord awakens from His sleep, and commands the winds and waters into calm: "Peace; be still!"
    The Catholic Church has, throughout its long history, proved itself indefectible, against all kinds of attack from within and without, against every persecution and every heresy and schism. As its Founder was persecuted, so the Catholic Church has been and ever will be persecuted."

Much more on this page:
http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/indefectibility.htm

So, in short, to adapt a Private Interpretation of the V2 documents, and/or to conclude, based on apparent but selective evidence, that the Church has essentially defected is to believe that:

Jesus Christ is a liar (= blasphemy)
Jesus Christ is not God (= heresy)
Jesus Christ meant something different from how the Church, inspired by the Holy Ghost, has repeatedly interpreted His words in the Gospel of Matthew  (= Protestant Private Interpretation)

[edited for typo]