The Indefectibility of the Catholic Church

[Khalid]

[This thread is bypassing the question of sedevacantism, as I intend to make a seperate thread in the sedevacantist subforum regarding my difficulties with that thesis; ad argumentum let us assume that the Pontificates of the last six Popes were legitimate]

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, xxii, 32); and thus, to the Roman Church, as Cyprian says, "faithlessness cannot gain access" [Ep. lv (lix), ad Cornelium).

The main, probably even only, obstacle which  keeps me from converting to Catholicism is the dogma of indefectibility, for the simple reason that it seems to have been objectively falsified by (at least) the changes in the Church that have occured since 1958 onward. The promulgation of Novus Ordo Missae seems to represent a radical corruption of the Church's liturgy; the condemnation (as intrinsically evil acts) of slavery, confession-extracting torture, the death penalty and the modern tolerance (even commanding) of communicatio in sacris, communion for the civilly divorced, and religious liberty seem to be clear examples of substantial corruption in the Church's moral teaching; the teaching of Unitatis Redintegratio that non-Catholic sects are means of salvation and that their eucharistic sacrifices build up the Church of God and are pleasing to God appears to be a startling corruption of the Church's doctrinal teaching. Every aspect of Catholicism seems to have been systematically destroyed, twisted, altered, or otherwise tweaked over the last 70 years to the point that Francis is recognizably non-catholic even to moderately well-informed unbelievers such as myself.

I understand that active papal and ecclesiastical infallibility was not strictly speaking invoked in any of these cases, and thus is not at issue; but, nevertheless, how can these changes be squared with indefectibility?

Is it really still possible to affirm, under JPII and Francis, that in the Roman Church, as Cyprian says, "faithlessness cannot gain access" [Ep. lv (lix), ad Cornelium)? I'd like to find a way to be able to, but have thus far been unable. The conciliar and post-conciliar changes are often blantly logically contradictory and repulsive to reason to such a degree that they render functionally null all of the motives of credibility which make Catholicism appear reasonably and credibly the divinely revealed religion.

[Julio]

It is divinely revealed religion because Jesus told us that this shall happen and to prove:

The slaves of the householder came to him and said, 'Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where have the weeds come from? He answered, 'An enemy has done this.' His slaves said to him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up? He replied, 'No, if you pull up the weeds you might uproot the wheat along with them.

(Matthew 13: 27 to 29)
So no one must be surprised about all that is going on.

Then, dismissing the crowds,* he went into the house. His disciples approached him and said, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field." He said in reply, "He who sows good seed is the Son of Man, the field is the world,* the good seed the children of the kingdom. The weeds are the children of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age,* and the harvesters are angels. Just as weeds are collected and burned [up] with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom* all who cause others to sin and all evildoers. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears ought to hear.

(Matthew 13: 36 to 43)

To be a Catholic is not some kind of warranty that one is going to become a Saint. The Church is a place where the truth of God can be found exclusively. The Pastors and the members are all endowed with freewill who are suppose to choose from among the goods. The fall caused this infiltration. It happened even during the time of Moses when Aaron and Meriam plotted against him. So, we cannot be surprised about these turn of events.

Despite that, the Catholic Church is indefectible because it where the deposit of faith by way of divinely revealed truths can be found. God told us that this shall happen. With more reason that we must believe.

[Bonaventure]

Welcome to the Gordian Knot.

I do not have an answer for you.

I grappled with similar things myself. A clear break with perennial Catholic teaching can be found with Dignitatis Humanae. Fr. Thomas Crean OP wrote an outstanding article on this, here:

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/thomas-crean/religious-liberty.htm

The following a broad strokes of how various camps within the Church tackle these issues:

Modernists: Vatican II did not go far enough. The teachings can and should change, we simply have a different understanding. Man has matured.

A prime example of this is the man recently nominated by Bergoglio to head the CDF. He is a-ok with homosexuality.

Conservative Novus Ordo/Neo Cons: the teaching is the same, we simply have to pray more for the grace to understand that the post conciliar magisterium and popes have expounded on these topics so profoundly. JP2, we love you.

Ecclesia Dei/FSSP/Full Communion Trads: Vatican II was simply a pastoral council - or - Paul VI/whomever used the wrong term/Latin phrase/said it was pastoral, so it doesn't count. (Kind of like when Ratzinger resigned the papacy. We love our German Shepherd. Thank you so much holy father for the motu proprio).

SSPX/"irregular" sedeplenists: V2 clearly represents a rupture with tradition, however it is pastoral and we can reject it and the post conciliar magisterium due to our faithfulness to Eternal Rome and the State of Emergency/Diabolical Disorientation.

Sedevacantist: V2 clearly ruptured with the Catholic Faith, due to loss of office, we can and must reject this and those promoting it.

In 2023, the lines between the non-Modernist camps are constantly blurring and changing.

I know some SSPXers, lay and clerical, who are rabidly anti-sedevacantists and who stick to the idea that V2 is totally orthodox.

I know diocesan mass goers and priests who privately have serious doubts about V2 and who omit Bergoglio's name from the Canon.

These are indeed crazy times.

[james03]

There is another opinion.

We are in the end times.  I think it is obvious that we are, but I'm not a prophet and can't guarantee it.

And in the end times comes The Great Apsostasy, which has been discussed for possibly 1000 years.

And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and it was said to me: Arise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar and them that adore therein.  2 But the court, which is without the temple, cast out, and measure it not: because it is given unto the Gentiles, and the holy city they shall tread under foot two and forty months:

Paul VI became Pope in 1963.  42 years later Pope Benedict became Pope. 

And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two hundred sixty days. .... And there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the desert unto her place, where she is nourished for a time and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

[Michael Wilson]

Khalid,
We all have had to grapple with this problem: "How to keep our Catholic faith, and yet not be disobedient to the authorities of the Church"?

The main, probably even only, obstacle which  keeps me from converting to Catholicism is the dogma of indefectibility, for the simple reason that it seems to have been objectively falsified by (at least) the changes in the Church that have occured since 1958 onward. The promulgation of Novus Ordo Missae seems to represent a radical corruption of the Church's liturgy; the condemnation (as intrinsically evil acts) of slavery, confession-extracting torture, the death penalty and the modern tolerance (even commanding) of communicatio in sacris, communion for the civilly divorced, and religious liberty seem to be clear examples of substantial corruption in the Church's moral teaching; the teaching of Unitatis Redintegratio that non-Catholic sects are means of salvation and that their eucharistic sacrifices build up the Church of God and are pleasing to God appears to be a startling corruption of the Church's doctrinal teaching. Every aspect of Catholicism seems to have been systematically destroyed, twisted, altered, or otherwise tweaked over the last 70 years to the point that Francis is recognizably non-catholic even to moderately well-informed unbelievers such as myself.

Yes, all of the above is true.

I understand that active papal and ecclesiastical infallibility was not strictly speaking invoked in any of these cases, and thus is not at issue; but, nevertheless, how can these changes be squared with indefectibility?

They cannot; the reason is that the Catholic Church is the divinely instituted organization which is to lead all men to salvation, by teaching Holy doctrines and dispensing the graces that men need to sanctify themselves, lead holy lives and attain to eternal salvation. The Conciliar Church on the contrary seeks to build a man centered religion, based on universal fraternity and wholly naturalistic in its doctrine and practice.

Is it really still possible to affirm, under JPII and Francis, that in the Roman Church, as Cyprian says, "faithlessness cannot gain access" [Ep. lv (lix), ad Cornelium)?

No.The "faithless" are "in-charge". 

I'd like to find a way to be able to, but have thus far been unable. The conciliar and post-conciliar changes are often blantly logically contradictory and repulsive to reason to such a degree that they render functionally null all of the motives of credibility which make Catholicism appear reasonably and credibly the divinely revealed religion.

Catholicism is the true religion; everything in it breathes of heavenly virtue and sanctity;what other religion enjoins the virtue of virginity; of marital chastity; of fraternal Charity; the love of suffering; the forgiveness of sins and the loving of one's enemies?
The Post Pius XII occupiers of the Papal Throne; have overturned all these things; and yet Catholicism still lives; we still believe as our fathers have believed; we still hold to the eternal truths.
We agree that there is a deep crisis in the Church; and we cannot predict when it will end; but we know that God does not demand of us to resolve all the questions involved, but to sanctify our daily lives and strive to live as virtuously as possible and transmit the precious gift of faith to the next generation of Catholics, who hopefully will gather the fruit of our sacrifices and struggles, as the Church will emerge more glorious than before from this trial. 

[AlNg]

The main, probably even only, obstacle which  keeps me from converting to Catholicism is the dogma of indefectibility,

That is somewhat surprising, since Islam strongly objects to the concept of the Trinity.

[Khalid]

The main, probably even only, obstacle which  keeps me from converting to Catholicism is the dogma of indefectibility,

That is somewhat surprising, since Islam strongly objects to the concept of the Trinity.

If I were still at the stage of "Trinity = Tritheism" I wouldn't be here lol.

And it depends on what you mean by "strongly object"; insofar as it goes against the Qur'an and the doctrine of Tawhid, yes, but the dumb "1+1+1=1" arguments of modern American da'is are quite novel. Many classical Muslim commentators understood that the Christians were affirming belief in one God who had subsistence in three persons, and argued less for hard contradiction and more that it was inconsistent with Divine Simplicity and that (since we worship persons and not natures) having three objects of worship that share the same deity is a slippery slope to practices like veneration and invocation of saints (which is traditionally considered idolatrous in Islam).

That's not to say I have no intellectual difficulties with the Incarnation and Trinity. I don't really see how it is possible for a subsistence/person to assume a second nature without change (or, rather, how it is possible for a subsistence to be able to assume a second nature without at the same time possessing potency; and a divine hypostasis by definition has no potency) and its not exactly clear to me how the relations of opposition within God don't conflict with Divine Simplicity. However, these rather subtle and minute intellectual difficulties are things I could overlook were I to be convinced that Catholicism was divinely revealed. Such difficulties are "small potatoes" so to say in comparison to the apparent defection at Vatican II and beyond.

[AlNg]

The main, probably even only, obstacle which  keeps me from converting to Catholicism is the dogma of indefectibility,

That is somewhat surprising, since Islam strongly objects to the concept of the Trinity.

If I were still at the stage of "Trinity = Tritheism" I wouldn't be here lol.

And it depends on what you mean by "strongly object"; insofar as it goes against the Qur'an and the doctrine of Tawhid, yes, but the dumb "1+1+1=1" arguments of modern American da'is are quite novel. Many classical Muslim commentators understood that the Christians were affirming belief in one God who had subsistence in three persons, and argued less for hard contradiction and more that it was inconsistent with Divine Simplicity and that (since we worship persons and not natures) having three objects of worship that share the same deity is a slippery slope to practices like veneration and invocation of saints (which is traditionally considered idolatrous in Islam).

That's not to say I have no intellectual difficulties with the Incarnation and Trinity. I don't really see how it is possible for a subsistence/person to assume a second nature without change (or, rather, how it is possible for a subsistence to be able to assume a second nature without at the same time possessing potency; and a divine hypostasis by definition has no potency) and its not exactly clear to me how the relations of opposition within God don't conflict with Divine Simplicity. However, these rather subtle and minute intellectual difficulties are things I could overlook were I to be convinced that Catholicism was divinely revealed. Such difficulties are "small potatoes" so to say in comparison to the apparent defection at Vatican II and beyond.

It comes down to whether or not you believe that Jesus is God. Catholics believe that:
Jesus is
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
My understanding is that Muslims reject this teaching.

[Khalid]

The main, probably even only, obstacle which  keeps me from converting to Catholicism is the dogma of indefectibility,

That is somewhat surprising, since Islam strongly objects to the concept of the Trinity.

If I were still at the stage of "Trinity = Tritheism" I wouldn't be here lol.

And it depends on what you mean by "strongly object"; insofar as it goes against the Qur'an and the doctrine of Tawhid, yes, but the dumb "1+1+1=1" arguments of modern American da'is are quite novel. Many classical Muslim commentators understood that the Christians were affirming belief in one God who had subsistence in three persons, and argued less for hard contradiction and more that it was inconsistent with Divine Simplicity and that (since we worship persons and not natures) having three objects of worship that share the same deity is a slippery slope to practices like veneration and invocation of saints (which is traditionally considered idolatrous in Islam).

That's not to say I have no intellectual difficulties with the Incarnation and Trinity. I don't really see how it is possible for a subsistence/person to assume a second nature without change (or, rather, how it is possible for a subsistence to be able to assume a second nature without at the same time possessing potency; and a divine hypostasis by definition has no potency) and its not exactly clear to me how the relations of opposition within God don't conflict with Divine Simplicity. However, these rather subtle and minute intellectual difficulties are things I could overlook were I to be convinced that Catholicism was divinely revealed. Such difficulties are "small potatoes" so to say in comparison to the apparent defection at Vatican II and beyond.

It comes down to whether or not you believe that Jesus is God. Catholics believe that:
Jesus is
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
My understanding is that Muslims reject this teaching.

Correct. Every Muslim prays multiple times a day Surah Al-Ikhlas (in arabic), the meaning of which is: "Say: He is the God, who is One, the God, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born, Nor is there to Him any equivalent."

I was just pointing out that we reject it because we don't believe that the Incarnation and Trinity were divinely revealed and because we believe Tawhid to be divinely revealed; not, as modern American da'is try to argue, because the Trinity and Incarnation are per se absolutely logically impossible (which is really just an argument from philosophy). If the latter were true then the Qur'an would be in error for stating that Christians worship God at all, and classical Muslim commentators were aware that the doctrine of the Trinity is sophisticated enough to avoid the charge of outright tritheism.

This being said, it should be clear why if I were convinced Catholicism is the divinely revealed religion, I would have no objection to the Trinity or the Incarnation. Which is why for the past year and a half I've focused my reading on the motives of credibility and fundamental theology; and why I am trying to understand how the current crisis doesn't falsify Catholicism and the motives of credibility.

[AlNg]

This being said, it should be clear why if I were convinced Catholicism is the divinely revealed religion, I would have no objection to the Trinity or the Incarnation. Which is why for the past year and a half I've focused my reading on the motives of credibility and fundamental theology; and why I am trying to understand how the current crisis doesn't falsify Catholicism and the motives of credibility.

I am not sure why should you focus in on whether or not the Catholic church is indefectible. Even if you thought that the Catholic church had defected, you could convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, or some other Christian religion which upheld the belief in the divinity of Jesus. IOW, I see a belief in the divinity of Jesus as a more compelling factor in whether or not to convert to Christianity from Islam.

[Khalid]

This being said, it should be clear why if I were convinced Catholicism is the divinely revealed religion, I would have no objection to the Trinity or the Incarnation. Which is why for the past year and a half I've focused my reading on the motives of credibility and fundamental theology; and why I am trying to understand how the current crisis doesn't falsify Catholicism and the motives of credibility.

I am not sure why should you focus in on whether or not the Catholic church is indefectible. Even if you thought that the Catholic church had defected, you could convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, or some other Christian religion which upheld the belief in the divinity of Jesus. IOW, I see a belief in the divinity of Jesus as a more compelling factor in whether or not to convert to Christianity from Islam.

I have examined other forms of Christianity (I was even an Orthodox Catechumen for a time before realizing I needed to step back and proceed more carefully) but ruled against them a couple of years ago for a variety of reasons. Hence why I'm focused on Catholicism and the current crisis in particular, as that's where my difficulty lies.

[Baylee]

I understand that active papal and ecclesiastical infallibility was not strictly speaking invoked in any of these cases, and thus is not at issue; but, nevertheless, how can these changes be squared with indefectibility?

I think this is what many say, but was it infallible according to Paul VI?  Have you ever seen this quote from Paul VI?  Generally speaking those that say Vatican II was not "infallible" tend to truncate this quote/misrepresent this quote (although most just copy and paste it wrong from others):

There are those who wonder what is the authority, the theological qualification, that the Council wished to attribute to its teachings, knowing that it avoided giving solemn dogmatic definitions, committing the infallibility of the ecclesiastical magisterium. And the answer is known to those who remember the conciliar declaration of 6 March 1964, repeated on 16 November 1964: given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided pronouncing dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility in an extraordinary way; but it has nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, which ordinary and so obviously authentic magisterium must be received docilely and sincerely by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of individual documents.

https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/audiences/1966/documents/hf_p-vi_aud_19660112.html

The "supreme ordinary magisterium" is the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church which is infallible.  Here Paul is explaining that solemn definitions were not made as part of the "Extraordinary Magisterium", but that Vatican II does in fact constitute the Church's OUM.  So, if Paul VI was a true pope, these teachings would be infallible.  But they contradict previous teaching.  Ergo.....(and I know this thread is not yet in the SV sub-forum, so I'll leave it at that).

Khalid...what a difficult time to search for the Truth in the Catholic Church.  It is so hard for sincere seekers as well as for those of us who wish to help convert them. 

[Miriam_M]

I do not agree with Bonaventure's assessment -- particularly his strict "categories" of which Catholics supposedly believe what.  In my experience, as someone who has viewed this over a period of time in many, many parishes, regions, and situations, there is far more gray matter and far fewer definitive "schools" of thought than were suggested above.

Also, most devout Catholics, including trads, are not ultramontanists, so analyzing the papacy to death is really not a priority in their daily lives.

I also agree with James about End Times, of which The Great Apostasy, permeating all levels of the Church -- laity, clergy, hierarchy -- is a key element and is operative right now. TradGranny said recently that the anti-Christ must come before End Times.  Yes, we understand the sequence, but that would be viewing End Times in a much narrower way than all the priests I know understand it, which is more inclusive.

[james03]

it avoided pronouncing dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility in an extraordinary way;  but it has nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, which ordinary and so obviously authentic magisterium must be received docilely and sincerely by all the faithful

He out-and-out tells you that it is fallible, but he says Catholics must receive it due to the authority of the Council.

It's a mess, but Vatican II clearly wasn't infallible.

[Baylee]

it avoided pronouncing dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility in an extraordinary way;  but it has nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, which ordinary and so obviously authentic magisterium must be received docilely and sincerely by all the faithful

He out-and-out tells you that it is fallible, but he says Catholics must receive it due to the authority of the Council.

It's a mess, but Vatican II clearly wasn't infallible.

What is the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium? 

He does not "out and out" state that it is "fallible".  He is only stating that it was not infallible in "an extraordinary way".