Earliest Known Images of the Apostles
Courtesy of the Vatican’s Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology
The Roman Catechism teaches the meaning of Apostolicity: “The true Church is also to be recognized from her origin, which can be traced back under the law of grace to the Apostles; for her doctrine is the truth not recently given, nor now first heard of, but delivered of old by the Apostles, and disseminated throughout the entire world. Hence no one can doubt that the impious opinions which heresy invents, opposed as they are to the doctrines taught by the Church from the days of the Apostles to the present time, are very different from the faith of the true Church. That all, therefore, might know which was the Catholic Church, the Fathers, guided by the Spirit of God, added to the Creed the word Apostolic. For the Holy Ghost, who presides over the Church, governs her by no other ministers than those of Apostolic succession. This Spirit, first imparted to the Apostles, has by the infinite goodness of God always continued in the Church. And just as this one Church cannot err in faith or morals, since it is guided by the Holy Ghost; so, on the contrary, all other societies arrogating to themselves the name of church, must necessarily, because guided by the spirit of the devil, be sunk in the most pernicious errors, both doctrinal and moral.”
The dogma of apostolicity, then, absolutely requires the Catholic Faith.
The question is whether it absolutely requires a hierarchy. The answer is yes, insofar as it’s necessary generally throughout history. Without the hierarchy, the Church would not have survived these last 1990 years and the faith most likely would not have lasted to the present day.
However, I submit that it’s not necessary at every point in time. As long as the principle of perpetuity or potential of fulfilling the offices exist within the faith, the mark of apostolicity remains. The principle of perpetuity for the papacy was defined at the First Vatican Council. By logical extension, the same principle must apply for the existence of bishops, since the episcopal order necessarily belongs to the essential constitution of the Church.
Apostolic succession doesn’t die out due to interregnums. An office doesn’t defect by the mere fact it is empty, but only if it can’t be filled. The transmission will always remain as long as the potential is there and according to the First Vatican Council, it will remain for the Chair of Peter.
The common opinion may be that the hierarchy will exist at every point in time, but facts outweigh a common opinion. I will examine later (in Part II) some theological works to see if they deny the possibility of our sedevacantist position or do they give general rules and understandings. For now, I will prove that apostolicity doesn’t require a hierarchy at every point in time.
The apostolic mark is a visible mark like the other three marks, viz. one, holy, and catholic. We call them marks so as to identify the true church. However, these marks matter most to us in identifying the local Catholic Church in our own communities. Knowing that the pope is Catholic or that somewhere the Catholic Church exists in the world doesn’t help us find the local Catholic Church.
Each and every particular church and mission of the Catholic Church has all four marks or else you couldn’t identify the local Catholic Church. It shouldn’t require a Catholic to consult a theological manual to understand all the particular details of each of the four marks. A basic understanding of the marks is all that’s needed to find the Church or else only theologians and highly educated Catholics would be the only ones to actually find it.
All four marks are interconnected to the doctrine and ministry of the Church. No other church has any of the four marks as the Catholic Church defines them. If you find the Church that’s one, then you’ve also found the Church that’s holy, catholic, and apostolic.
When a pastoral office of a particular church or mission becomes vacant, the apostolic mark doesn’t disappear from that particular church or mission or else the particular church or mission would effectively disappear each time the office becomes vacant.
One might argue that the particular church without a priest is under the bishop. Therefore, the mark exists with the bishop over that church. What if the bishopric is also vacant at the same time as the church without the priest? The next step would be to point to the pope who is the head over all the Church. Well, what if the papal office is vacant at the same time as the diocese without a bishop and the church within that diocese without a priest? Does that church cease to be Catholic, since there’s no hierarchy over that particular church to point to? In the past without the internet and high speed mail, men wouldn’t know for long periods of time when the papal office is vacant anyway.
No Catholic in his right mind would say that church was no longer Catholic. What keeps the apostolic mark with this particular church, without a priest, bishop, or pope, is the faith of the people with the potential of having the office filled.
A good example is the Church in Japan. On July 24, 1587, the Chancellor of the Realm, Tokugawa Hideyoshi promulgated a ban on Catholicism. The Church went underground and eventually lost all of its pastors for the next couple of hundred years until the late 1800’s. This of course, would include papal interregnums throughout those many years. The Catholic Church existed without a hierarchy in Japan under these harshest of times for any Christian anywhere anytime.
The particular church or mission that’s connected to the Apostolic See (filled or not) is the Catholic Church, plain and simple. Again, the Church in Japan in the 16th and 17th centuries serves as one good example.
Every particular church and mission of the faithful united to the Chair of Peter has all four marks, because the marks are not dependent on the offices being filled, but only that they can be filled or the potential of being filled.
The whole Church is governed by the Chair of Peter even when the office is vacant. The proof lies in the fact that Catholics must obey and follow the laws and teachings of the Church that stem from the Office of Peter just as we are governed by Christ through His Word and Instruction. The governing would be imperfect, since the Church is in an imperfect form without a pope.
Just as the Church can be in an imperfect form without a pope, the four marks can be imperfect. For instance, during the Great Western Schism, when three men claimed the papacy, the mark of oneness was imperfect. The oneness existed, but it was difficult to see and understand.
The Great Western Schism was a unique time in history, just as our times are today. I suspect the common and perhaps the universal opinion of the experts long before the Great Western Schism would be that such a thing would be impossible, yet it happened. A universal opinion is still an opinion, thus it is futile to use some theologian to prove that a hierarchy will exist at every moment in time. The moral unanimity opinion can’t be proved and the numerical unanimity opinion proves nothing.
It was the universal (numerical) opinion, including that of popes, that a true pope could be legitimately deposed. This is proved by the fact that popes were deposed and not a single theologian said it was illegitimate at that time. This universal opinion was eventually defined to be false at the First Vatican Council, which reiterated the teaching of Pope St. Nicholas I, in his epistle (8), Proposueramus quidem, (865 A.D.) to Emperor Michael III on the Immunity and Independence of the Church: “… “Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, nor by the people will the judge be judged… ‘The first seat will not be judged by anyone.’”
The apostolic mark exists in potentiality when it comes to the filling of offices for Apostolic succession, but exists fully in apostolicity in doctrine, which is guaranteed by apostolicity in mission. Since the mission remains with the potentiality of the filling of office, and the Church is one body morally in law and doctrine with the highest office, the mark is still visible and perhaps more visible than the mark of oneness during the time of the Great Western Schism. It’s not hard to find the real Church, which holds to the Apostolic Faith in its entirety, but it will take some effort to find it.
A government or hierarchy without apostolicity of faith is not and can not be of the Church of Christ. This necessarily excludes the Eastern Orthodox and the Vatican 2 religion because both religions can’t trace its faith back to the Apostles.
The Eastern Orthodox churches reject the papacy and the Vatican 2 church not only doesn’t have the four marks, it rejects them as the Catholic Church has defined them. This is demonstrated in Missing the Marks: The Church of Vatican 2.
The Vatican 2 religion also rejects the ecclesiology of the return to the Catholic Church, the Syllabus of Errors, and the condemnation of women serving the sanctuary and holding public offices. It rejects the death penalty as an intrinsically evil practice because according to the head of the Vatican 2 religion, it attacks the inviolability and the dignity of the person.
Apostolicity absolutely requires the Apostolic Faith, but not the hierarchy at all times. Apostolic succession doesn’t cease for the papacy when the office is vacant even for a long time. There’s no reason to think it’s stopped now. Apostolicity remains with the Chair of Peter regardless.
According to the Vatican 2 religion, material apostolic succession as found in the Eastern Orthodox churches is all that’s needed to maintain the Church of Christ. There’s no question that sedevacantism has material apostolic succession with the current bishops. Therefore, if a Vatican 2 apologist appeals to an opinion that formal apostolic succession is necessary, they would be going against their own popes who taught the opposite.
The position of sedevacantism does not say the hierarchy has died out, just as the papal office has not died out due to the vacancy. For it to die out, it would take the inability to ever fill the office. As long as Catholic bishops exist, the potential of having offices exist. Thus, apostolic succession remains and the hierarchy has not died out and it will not die out, lest the gates of hell prevail.
Great article as usual! I do have a question though. Who are some of the popes who held the opinion that a pope could legitimately be deposed? When I think of a pope being supposedly deposed, I usually think of the immoral Pope John XII in the 10th century.
Popes from Pope St. Silverius to John X to the popes into the mid-11th century were deposed and not a word was said. I suspect that popes in the beginning just didn’t know their full power and authority. What we do see is the fact that popes were deposed and everyone accepted it and went on to their replacements.
“This necessarily excludes the Eastern Orthodox and the Vatican 2 religion because both religions can’t trace its faith back to the Apostles.”
Steven, can you comment more on the bit about the Eastern Orthodox? Do you mean only in the sense of them rejecting the authority of the Apostolic See as of, effectively, 1,054 A.D.? Prior to that, everyone was in communion with everyone else. The Heterodox would very much claim that their churches can be traced back to the apostles:
Thomas in India and the Far East
James in Jerusalem
Peter in Antioch, Greece, and Crete
Andrew in Byzantium/Constantinople
Philip and Mark in Ethiopia
Paul and Barnabas in Cyprus
Andrew and Simon in the Slavic and Rus’ lands
Mark in Alexandria
And these traditional roots are accepted by Rome. Moreover, if they do not trace their origins to the various Apostles, what of we Eastern Catholics who retain (largely) the same liturgical, disciplinary, and theological traditions? Those of us who abandoned schism and returned to the Church or had never left in the first place were not required to give up our traditions and wholly adopt the Latin Rite.
Thank you!
The Eastern Orthodox can’t trace their faith which rejects the supreme authority of Peter over the other bishops. It’s the faith that matters. The Eastern Orthodox were Catholic.
How can Apostolicity and Apostolic succession preserve in RCC without papal electors – cardinals, bishops, roman clergy?
Would it be new succession but not Apostolic from St. Peter?
Who will have Authority to choose which bishops are lawful to elect new pope?
How can we be sure this conclave will be lawful?
Vatican 1 Canon stated: “if anyone then says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by Divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church . . . let him be anathema.” Therefore, papal electors could include our bishops. There’s not many, so I would suspect that all them would need to agree or should agree. It would NOT be a new succession. Cardinal Billot stated: “When it would be necessary to proceed with the election, if it is impossible to follow the regulations of papal law, as was the case during the Great Western Schism, one can accept, without difficulty, that the power of election could be transferred to a General Council…Because natural law prescribes that, in such cases, the power of a superior is passed to the immediate inferior because this is absolutely necessary for the survival of the society and to avoid the tribulations of extreme need.” (De Ecclesia Christi, Billot) It would not absolutely need to be lawful, since we have true popes who were unlawfully elected.
Therefore, papal electors could include our bishops
What does “our bishops” mean? Only sedevacantist bishops?
Or with sedeprivationist, FSSPX bishops?
But they will refuse participating in such a conclave.
Isn’t that conclave impossible?
FSSPX? Did you mean SSPX? They wouldn’t necessarily qualify unless ours recognized them for such an election. Sedeprivationists could qualify with the sedevacantist bishops. Obviously, things are impossible if men refuse to participate, but there’s the possibility they will at some point.
A good refresher and study on the subject. This is one more good reference you have provided when a solid background is needed and it is easily explained and understood. Thank you.
There is a blog that published a book refuting sedevacantism in January 2021 and I have never seen it refuted. Could you write or forward to a priest who can answer this book?
https://contrasedevacantism.blogspot.com/2021/01/book-contrasedevacantism-definitive.html
No need to forward to any priest to answer it. All of the arguments have been thoroughly debunked on this website and many others. This article already refutes him on one point.
Hi Steven,
Could you please provide some quotes from the Catholic magisterium (doctrinal manuals, council teachings, canon law) that support your various claims/points/interpretations?
At present this article can only be interpreted as being your personal opinion and arguably it should be labelled as being such until there is evidence provided from Church teaching to back your many claims.
Can you be more specific on what points exactly? I give three historic examples of fact that proves three points. I provide a Roman Catechism quote to show another. I quote a pope on another point. I link other articles to prove other points. What exactly are you talking about? Theological manuals contain much personal opinion, too and canon law doesn’t get too much into it.
The Church makes it quite clear that the mark of Apostolicity refers to both the Apostolic Faith (that of the Apostles) and Apostolic Succession. Both are essential to the Church.
Please cite Catholic magisterium to prove your point “that apostolicity doesn’t require a hierarchy at every point in time.”
Please cite a Catholic magisterium that says there must be a hierarchy at every point in time and I’ll submit. I agree that Apostolic succussion is essential to the Church since the perpetual principle of the pope is a defined dogma. Also, if the hierarchy must exist at every point in time, who and where are they? If you can’t point to them, then it’s over.
See below. Please submit.
Herrmann, Theologiæ Dogmaticæ Institutiones, n. 282
“The apostolic succession can be defined as: the public, legitimate, solemn and never interrupted elevation [suffectio] of persons in the place of the Apostles to govern and nourish the Church. (Cercia, I, p. 223)
Succession may be material or formal. Material succession consists in the fact that there have never been lacking persons who have continuously been substituted for the Apostles ; formal succession consists in the fact that these substituted persons truly enjoy authority derived from the Apostles and received from him who is able to communicate it.
These last words “and received from him who is able to communicate it” indicate that for formal succession a mission is required; this mission can be defined as “legitimate assumption and deputation to carry out apostolic functions, insofar as someone legitimately succeeds to the Apostles.” (Cercia, I, p. 223)
For someone to be made a successor of the Apostles and pastor of the Church, the power of order — which is always validly conferred by virtue of ordination — is not enough; the power of jurisdiction is also required, and this is conferred not by virtue of ordination but by virtue of a mission received from him to whom Christ has entrusted the supreme power over the universal Church.”
Manual of Catholic Theology, Joseph Wilhelm D.D. PH.D. and Thomas B. Scannell D.D., 1909
“SECT. 14.—ORGANIZATION OF THE APOSTOLATE (CONCLUDED)—EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL INDEFECTIBILITY OF DOCTRINE AND FAITH IN THE CHURCH—RECAPITULATION
I. Intimately connected with the infallibility of the Church is her Indefectibility. There is, however, a difference between the two. Infallibility means merely that what the Church teaches cannot be false, whereas the notion of Indefectibility implies that the essentials of Revelation are at all times actually preached in the Church; that non-essentials are proposed, at least implicitly, and are held habitually; and that the inner, living Faith never fails. The Indefectibility of truth in the Church is less limited than the Infallibility. The perfection of the latter requires merely that no doctrine proposed for belief should be false, whereas the perfection of the former requires that all the parts of revealed doctrine should be actually, and at all times, expressed in the doctrine of the Church. Indefectibility admits of degrees, whereas a single failure, for a single day, on a single point of doctrine, on the part of the public teaching authority, would utterly destroy Infallibility.
II. The Indefectibility of the Teaching Body is at the same time a condition and a consequence of the Indefectibility of the Church. A distinction must, however, be drawn between the Indefectibility of the Head and the Indefectibility of the subordinate members. The individual who is the Head may die, but the authority of the Head does not die with him—it is transmitted to his successor. On the other hand, the Teaching Body as a whole could not die or fail without irreparably destroying the continuity of authentic testimony. Again, the Pope’s authority would not be injured if, when not exercising it (extra judicium), he professed a false doctrine, whereas the authenticity of the episcopal testimony would be destroyed if under any circumstances the whole body fell into heresy.
III. The Indefectibility of the Faith in individual members is closely connected with the external and social Indefectibility of the Church. The two stand to each as cause and effect, and act and react on each other. The interior Faith of individual members, even of the Pope and the Bishops, may fail; but it is impossible for the Faith to fail in the whole mass. The Infallibility and Indefectibility of the Church and of the Faith require on the part of the Head, that by means of his legislative and judicial power the law of Faith should be always infallibly proposed; but this does not require the infallibility and indefectibility of his own interior Faith and of his extrajudicial utterances. On the part of the Teaching Body as a whole, there is directly required merely that it should not fail collectively, which, of course, supposes that it does not err universally in its internal Faith. Lastly, on the part of the Body of the Faithful, it is directly and absolutely required that their inner Faith (sensus et virtus fidei) should never fail entirely, and also that the external profession should never be universally wrong.
The whole doctrine of the Organization of the Teaching Apostolate may be summarized as follows. The teaching function bound up with the two fundamental powers of the Hierarchy, Orders and Jurisdiction, fulfils all the requirements and attains all the purposes for which it was instituted. It transmits and enforces Revelation, and brings about unity and universality of Faith. It is a highly developed organism, with the members acting in perfect harmony, wherein the Holy Ghost operates, and whereby He gives manifold testimony to revealed truth, at the same time upholding and strengthening the action of individuals by means of the reciprocal action and reaction of the different organs. Just as God spoke to our fathers through the Prophets before the coming of Christ,” at sundry times and in divers manners” (Heb. 1:1), so now does Jesus Christ speak to us at sundry times and in divers manners in the Church “which is His body, and the fulness of Him Who is filled all in all” (Eph. 1:23).”
“Apostolicity of Government – or mission, or authority – means the Church is always ruled by pastors who form one same juridical person with the apostles. In other words it is always ruled by pastors who are the apostles’ legitimate successors.
It has already been proved that Christ Himself founded a living organization, a visible Church. Granted that fact, it should be obvious that an essential part of the Church’s structure is apostolicity of government. For no one but the apostolic college, under the headship of Peter, did Christ confer the power of teaching, sanctifying, and ruling the faithful until the end of the world. This triple power, therefore, necessary belongs, and can only belong, to those who form one moral person with the apostles: their legitimate successors. (Taken from: Dogmatic Theology, Christ’s Church, Vol. II, Van Noort, 1957, pgs. 151-152”
“De Clericis. Lib. I. Cap. V.
archive.org/details/bub_gb_SfJq79_HdscC/page/121/mode/2up
p. 122
Chapter VII. The right to elect the Supreme Pontiff, and the other pastors and ministers of the Church, does not belong to the people by the divine law. But if at any time the people had any power in this matter, they had it entirely by the connivance or the concession of the Pontiffs.
…
Perhaps you object, that in the earthly State the people are called sheep, the rulers pastors, and nevertheless the election of the ruler pertains to the people. I reply, that the concept is one thing for the earthly, another for the heavenly, that is, the Christian State. For in the earthly State all men are born naturally free, and thus the political power is possessed immediately by the people itself, as long as they have not vested it in some ruler. But the Christian State never had such a liberty, given that with it was born its own King and Pastor, for Christ at the same moment established the Church, and made Peter its head. Besides, the people in an earthly State can only choose a ruler when they have none: but the Church never lacks a ruler, for Christ always lives, and also there are always some Bishops in the Church, who are able to elect and to create new Pastors.”
“Rt. Rev. Lawrence Sheil. The Bible Against Protestantism and for Catholicity. 5th ed. Boston: Donahoe, 1859.
archive.org/details/thebibleagainstp00sheiuoft/page/n3/mode/2up
pp. 239-43
ARTICLE I. No lawful Ministry without a lawful Mission.
Whence it plainly follows that any society of men, let them be as numerous as they please, or boast of their purity as much as they please, can never be a true Church, if it has not a ministry originally derived from Christ by an uninterrupted succession of lawful pastors; because the true Church can never be without true pastors; and without a ministry originally derived from Christ by an uninterrupted succession in the same communion, there can be no true pastors.”
I’m fully aware of those teachings, but they aren’t magisterial teachings. Please cite the magisterial teaching rather than the opinions of theologians. Also, we have lawful pastors as I’ve explained in the past. The theologians don’t explain our situation, which apparently wasn’t in the minds of those before the great apostasy.
Hi Steven, here are some quotes from Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical, Satis Cognitum, “On the Unity of the Church,” June 29, 1896 that are consistent with the teachings of theologians quoted above ***indicates emphasis*** as you don’t permit formatting in the comments section.
“***And, since it was necessary that His divine mission should be perpetuated to the end of time, He took to Himself Disciples, trained by himself, and made them partakers of His own authority.*** And, when He had invoked upon them from Heaven the Spirit of Truth, He bade them go through the whole world and faithfully preach to all nations, what He had taught and what He had commanded, so that by the profession of His doctrine, and the observance of His laws, the human race might attain to holiness on earth and neverending happiness in Heaven. In this wise, and on this principle, the Church was begotten. If we consider the chief end of His Church and the proximate efficient causes of salvation, it is undoubtedly spiritual; but in regard to those who constitute it, and to the things which lead to these spiritual gifts, it is external and necessarily visible. The Apostles received a mission to teach by visible and audible signs, and they discharged their mission only by words and acts which certainly appealed to the senses. So that their voices falling upon the ears of those who heard them begot faith in souls – “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the words of Christ” (Rom. x., 17). And faith itself – that is assent given to the first and supreme truth – though residing essentially in the intellect, must be manifested by outward profession – “For with the heart we believe unto justice, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. x., 10). In the same way in man, nothing is more internal than heavenly grace which begets sanctity, but the ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace are external: that is to say, the sacraments which are administered by men specially chosen for that purpose, by means of certain ordinances.
***Jesus Christ commanded His Apostles and their successors to the end of time to teach and rule the nations.*** He ordered the nations to accept their teaching and obey their authority. But his correlation of rights and duties in the Christian commonwealth not only could not have been made permanent, but could not even have been initiated except through the senses, which are of all things the messengers and interpreters. (Par. 3)
***But, as we have already said, the Apostolic mission was not destined to die with the Apostles themselves, or to come to an end in the course of time,*** since it was intended for the people at large and instituted for the salvation of the human race. For Christ commanded His Apostles to preach the “Gospel to every creature, to carry His name to nations and kings, and to be witnesses to him to the ends of the earth.” ***He further promised to assist them in the fulfilment of their high mission, and that, not for a few years or centuries only, but for all time – “even to the consummation of the world.*** Upon which St. Jerome says: “He who promises to remain with His Disciples to the end of the world declares that they will be for ever victorious, and that He will never depart from those who believe in Him” (In Matt., lib. iv., cap. 28, v. 20). ***But how could all this be realized in the Apostles alone, placed as they were under the universal law of dissolution by death? It was consequently provided by God that the Magisterium instituted by Jesus Christ should not end with the life of the Apostles, but that it should be perpetuated. We see it in truth propagated, and, ‘as it were, delivered from hand to hand. For the Apostles consecrated bishops, and each one appointed those who were to succeed them immediately*** “in the ministry of the word.”
Nay more: they likewise required their successors to choose fitting men, to endow them with like authority, and to confide to them the office and mission of teaching. “Thou, therefore, my son, be strong in the grace which is in Christ Jesus: and the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same command to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also” (2 Tim. ii., 1-2). Wherefore, as Christ was sent by God and the Apostles by Christ, so the Bishops and those who succeeded them were sent by the Apostles. “The Apostles were appointed by Christ to preach the Gospel to us. Jesus Christ was sent by God. Christ is therefore from God, and the Apostles from Christ, and both according to the will of God….Preaching therefore the word through the countries and cities, when they had proved in the Spirit the first – fruits of their teaching they appointed bishops and deacons for the faithful….They appointed them and then ordained them, so that when they themselves had passed away other tried men should carry on their ministry” (S. Clemens Rom. Epist. I ad Corinth. capp. 42, 44). On the one hand, therefore, it is necessary that the mission of teaching whatever Christ had taught should remain perpetual and immutable, and on the other that the duty of accepting and professing all their doctrine should likewise be perpetual and immutable. “Our Lord Jesus Christ, when in His Gospel He testifies that those who not are with Him are His enemies, does not designate any special form of heresy, but declares that all heretics who are not with Him and do not gather with Him, scatter His flock and are His adversaries: He that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth” (S. Cyprianus, Ep. lxix., ad Magnum, n. I). (Par. 8)
***Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium (Par. 9)***
But as this heavenly doctrine was never left to the arbitrary judgment of private individuals, but, in the beginning delivered by Jesus Christ, ***was afterwards committed by Him exclusively to the Magisterium already named, so the power of performing and administering the divine mysteries, together with the authority of ruling and governing, was not bestowed by God on all Christians indiscriminately, but on certain chosen persons.*** For to the ***Apostles and their legitimate successors alone*** these words have reference: “Going into the whole world preach the Gospel.” “Baptizing them.” “Do this in commemoration of Me.” “Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them.” And in like manner He ordered ***the Apostles only and those who should lawfully succeed them to feed – that is to govern with authority*** – all Christian souls. Whence it also follows that it is necessarily the duty of Christians to be subject and to obey. And these duties of the Apostolic office are, in general, all included in the words of St. Paul: “Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God” (I Cor. iv., I). (Par. 10)
Wherefore Jesus Christ bade all men, present and future, follow Him as their leader and Saviour; and this, not merely as individuals, but as forming a society, organized and united in mind. In this way a duly constituted society should exist, formed out of the divided multitude of peoples, one in faith, one in end, one in the participation of the means adapted to the attainment of the end, and one as subject to one and the same authority. To this end He established in the Church all principles which necessarily tend to make organized human societies, and through which they attain the perfection proper to each. That is, in it (the Church), all who wished to be the sons of God by adoption might attain to the perfection demanded by their high calling, and might obtain salvation. The Church, therefore, as we have said, is man’s guide to whatever pertains to Heaven. This is the office appointed unto it by God: that it may watch over and may order all that concerns religion, and may, without let or hindrance, exercise, according to its judgment, its charge over Christianity. Wherefore they who pretend that the Church has any wish to interfere in Civil matters, or to infringe upon the rights of the State, know it not, or wickedly calumniate it.
But if the authority of Peter and his successors is plenary and supreme, it is not to be regarded as the sole authority. For He who made Peter the foundation of the Church also “chose, twelve, whom He called apostles” (Luke vi., 13); and just as it is necessary that the authority of Peter should be perpetuated in the Roman Pontiff, so, ***by the fact that the bishops succeed the Apostles, they inherit their ordinary power, and thus the episcopal order necessarily belongs to the essential constitution of the Church. (Par. 14)***
NB: This explicitly refers to the ordinary power of the successors of the Apostles which is referring to only those Bishops who have ordinary jurisdiction. Only these succeed in offices in the Church. They are part of the essential constitution of the Church and must always actually exist or she would be defective and have defected.
Sorry it took so much time in replying. Webmaster sent your comment to spam. I didn’t know until I checked the spam folder. Anyway, I have no problem with Pope Leo’s teaching. The papacy is permanent but that doesn’t mean it must always be filled. Bishops are part of the essential constitution of the Church, but not necessarily the ones holding offices. The potential must exist for sure. You have not shown where the Church has infallibly declared that the Church must have a hierarchy at every moment in time. If you could show it, you would prove the Church is not infallible because they don’t exist today. Satis Cognitum cuts against you because you must be able to show where or how they exist today if you claim it means what you think it means.
Paragraph 9: “Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium… the power of performing and administering the divine mysteries, together with the authority of ruling and governing, was not bestowed by God on all Christians indiscriminately, but on certain chosen persons. For to the Apostles and their legitimate successors alone these words have reference: “Going into the whole world preach the Gospel.” “Baptizing them.” “Do this in commemoration of Me.” “Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them.” And in like manner He ordered the Apostles only and those who should lawfully succeed them to feed – that is to govern with authority – all Christian souls.”
The magisterium is living.
Speray: I agree. The papacy is living and permanent, too, but that doesn’t mean it must always be filled.
That means it doesn’t just exist in potential.
Speray: Yes, it does.
It is permanent – it must always exist and cannot ever not exist once established. The Church can exist without a Pope, because this office out of necessity cannot always be filled. The same is not true of the Episcopal College, which is essential to the Church and cannot cease to exist without the Church failing. By faith we know that there are always successors to the Apostles.
Speray: That’s an opinion. The Church exists now without them. The whole point of having an episcopal college that you can’t point to only disproves your understanding why it must exist. My argument is the only one that makes sense.
The view that no successors to the Apostles exist is one of the key reasons why so many reject sede vacante.
Speray: True, so they accept a defected church.
It runs contrary to Church teaching and implies a defected Church.
Speray: That’s a false opinion.
You claim that it doesn’t but don’t cite any Catholic sources to show that your belief conforms with Church teaching. If you can do so great, but I suspect that you would have if you could have done so.
Speray: I have done so.
It needs to be remembered that the Eastern Rites retained their sacramental rites and still have valid orders where these have been followed.
Speray: So do the Eastern Orthodox schismatics.
They also elect their own Bishops and the acts of even AntiPopes can be supplied with jurisdiction by the Church where they are for the common good of the Church.
Speray: AGreed and I have said so in past articles.
Approving the appointment of Eastern Rite Clergy to offices created by an actual Pope is for the common good. Apostolic Succession continues in the Church: just probably not in the Roman Rite.
Speray: The problem is that the Eastern Rites accept the same heresies as the WEst.
Just because such successors to the Apostles don’t speak your language and live in obscure places doesn’t mean such men don’t exist. It isn’t up to me to find them, but rather to conform my intellect to Church teaching.
Speray: I agee, which is why I hold to my position. Yours is an imaginative.
The traditional clergy be they sede or SSPX do not govern with authority and lack a formal mission from the Church.
Speray: No they don’t. They have mission.
That doesn’t mean this cannot change in the future, but for now their sacramental bishops aren’t successors to the Apostles according to the infallible teachings of Holy Mother Church. Our duty is to conform our intellect to her teaching.
Speray: Which is why you can’t accept the heretical East as some sort of savior to your opinion.
Hi Steven,
The following linked article by Mgr Joseph Clifford Fenton explains the teaching authority of the Theological Manuals and shows them to be part of the universal ordinary magisterium of the Church [http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/Manuals.htm].
Speray: Fenton has been wrong about several things.
As such, I hope that you will reconsider your position on the universal teaching of the Church on there always being actual successors to the Apostles in the Church as discussed in the manuals universally and try to re-evaluate your position of the crisis in the light of Church teaching [and the facts] instead.
Speray: Opinions are opinions. There is no universal teaching of the Church that a hierarchy will exist at every point in time. If it did, it would only prove that the Catholic Church is not infallible.
There are plenty of validly ordained clergy in the Eastern Rites who still have valid sacramental rites.
Speray: Even the Eastern Orthodox have valid sacramental rites, but that doesn’t mean they have ordinary jurisdiction. The Easter rites are in the same boat as the Latin rite. They fell with Vatican 2.
The actions of an AntiPope in confirming the appointment of a Catholic by their Patriarch to an office in the Church with ordinary jurisdiction [making them a successor of the apostles] can be supplied by the Church under the principle of common error as described in this article: [https://crisisinthechurch.com/wire/f/apostolic-succession-in-the-vatican-ii-era].
Adieu.
Speray: Only if the antipope was NOT a manifest heretic known to the whole world.