Why Sedevacantism and Independent Traditional Catholicism is Wrong

 

Table of Contents 

Summary....................................................................................................................................................1

Personal notes............................................................................................................................................2

1. What is Independent Catholic Traditionalism?.....................................................................................4

2. Independent Catholic Traditionalism is wrong.....................................................................................5 

2.1. Apostolic succession – public and perennial.................................................................................7

2.2. Visibility, unity, government..........................................................................................................7

2.3. Ministry without authority?...........................................................................................................8

2.4. The independent traditionalist church is defective......................................................................11 

3. The solution: traditionalism without independence.............................................................................14

4. Objections I – in favor of independent traditionalism.........................................................................15

5. Objections II – against the “conciliar” church.....................................................................................16

6. Quotations...........................................................................................................................................16 

6.1. The Apostolic College cannot die out..........................................................................................16

6.2. Visibility, Unity, Mission.............................................................................................................24

6.3. Necessity of Mission for Ministry..............................................................................................43 

Click here for PDF Version

Summary 

The essence of independent Catholic traditionalism is to create replacement clergy and churches because the official clergy and churches defected from the Catholic religion, in matters of doctrine,  liturgy, and sacraments. But according to Catholic doctrine, a universal defection of this kind is  impossible. Such a defection could occur in one or many particular churches (e.g. Constantinople or  England), but the faithful could never lawfully create their own clergy and churches in response to such a crisis. To do so would be a schismatic act. 

By their way of acting, independent traditionalists assert a universal defection of the Church,  because they regard their ministry as necessary in every single diocese in the world. Nowhere do they  recognize a Catholic bishop now in office whose permission is needed for a public ministry in his  diocese. Some independent traditionalists verbally recognize the official or “Novus Ordo” bishops as  legitimate office-holders, while others don't, but all behave as if those bishops have no authority. Thus, the “universal church” of independent traditionalists lacks the Apostolic succession, which requires  bishops who teach, sanctify, and govern by legitimate authority, as true shepherds of particular  churches. Without such bishops, the independent traditionalists have no means of propagating the  Church's legitimate mission and ministry, and their church lacks unity and apostolicity. Independent traditionalists have invented two doctrinal errors to justify their position: 

 1. It is lawful and necessary for priests to carry on a routine ministry of the word and the sacraments  without any commission or authority, if such ministry would otherwise be lacking for a long time.  This is authorized by the law itself: if not the ecclesiastical law, then certainly the divine law, which guarantees the Church's right to perpetuate her own existence and to provide the ordinary means of  

Summary www.hoyletutoring.com/research 1

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

salvation. If such a ministry without authority must continue for a long time, it includes the right to ordain priests and consecrate bishops in order to perpetuate itself. 

 2. The Apostolicity of the Church does not require bishops who are successors of the Apostles in the  full sense – by doctrine, orders, and authority – to be living and publicly known at all times. There  are two possible explanations for how the Catholic Church retains her Apostolicity today: 

 a) All that's strictly required is that the Church retain the ability to provide herself with a  legitimate pope and legitimate bishops again in the future; they will be true successors of  the most recent legitimate pope and bishops. Meanwhile, the public adherence of  traditionalists to magisterial teaching and papal law as it existed before the Vatican II  revolution is sufficient to maintain the mark of Apostolicity. 

 b) The independent traditionalist bishops must be the pastors and doctors who are today's  successors of the Apostles, despite their not having visibly succeeded to any existing  ecclesiastical office, and despite the fact that most of them claim no office or authority. The fact that the teaching Church must endure to the end of time proves that the independent  traditionalist bishops must be legitimate pastors, because presently they are the only suitable candidates for that role. 

As the independent traditionalist movement is now more than 40 years old and is passing its  torch to a new generation of priests and bishops, it is becoming more clear that its position is untenable. The fact can no longer be evaded, that the independent traditionalist worldview necessarily implies that the Church's ordinary ministry has fallen into universal corruption or has become extinct. Since  Catholic doctrine says that such corruption or extinction is impossible, independent “Catholic”  traditionalism becomes a self-refuting position, attempting to be Catholic while interpreting the events  of the last 60 years as having disproved the Church's Apostolicity, unity, and indefectibility. 

This is not to say that independent traditionalists realize this about their position. Quite the  opposite. I know from experience, correspondence, and research, that the vast majority of independent  traditionalists earnestly believe that their position is the best, safest, most reasonable Catholic reaction  to a series of events that appears catastrophic and previously unthinkable. Even traditionalists who  admit that they are probably wrong about something, or that their lack of any practical way to rebuild a  legitimate hierarchy is a serious problem, still see their overall course of action as irreproachable. 

In their view, it's simple: one must practice the Catholic religion by public worship and by  receiving the sacraments. That requires priests who are Catholic, but the Novus Ordo is not Catholic.  So the alternatives are to stay home and let the Catholic religion die out, or to make your own priests  and chapels and do the best you can. 

The problem is that this position is simply not compatible with Catholic doctrine. This paper  aims to explain why, and to provide an alternative position: that the only way to maintain a non defected Catholic Church is to recognize the official bishops as legitimate office-holders, visible  successors of the Apostles, with whom all Catholics must maintain unity of communion and of  government. 

Personal notes 

This essay marks a huge practical change in my religious position, from sedevacantist home aloner to mainstream Catholic Church. I am still thinking it through while taking the practical steps to  

Personal notes www.hoyletutoring.com/research 2

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

make it a reality. As far as religious doctrine I have not changed, but I have come to understand in  more detail what I never intended to deny. It was and is my intention to believe and practice the  Roman Catholic religion. 

After a Protestant upbringing, I became an independent Catholic traditionalist in 2004 and a  sedevacantist in 2005. I believed that the sweeping changes in Catholic teaching and practice that  began in the 1960s had ruined the Catholic religion, forcing it to carry on at independent chapels. The  gravity of this decision, with regard to my choice of pastors and visible organization, wasn't clear to me at the time; I was simply looking for a Mass and a community that were Catholic as opposed to Novus  Ordo. The possibility that I was joining a schism never made sense to me; I thought it was impossible  to be schismatic by practicing the Catholic religion as all had done before 1970. 

Deficits in my own knowledge and character soon led me to be ensnared by a lawless  independent Feeneyite cult movement, which I escaped after a few years, not without significant  psychological and financial damage. In 2008 I was back on my own as a practical home-aloner. Still a  sedevacantist, I was unwilling to attend any non-sedevacantist Mass, and I was skeptical of  sedevacantist Masses. There was none near me in any case. 

As Feeneyism ceased to be a reason for me to avoid independent traditionalist Masses, the  jurisdiction issue arose to fill its place. Online forums led me to read Fr. Miaskiewicz's dissertation on  supplied jurisdiction, promising that it would explain why independent priests can validly absolve in  the sacrament of confession. In fact, Miaskiewicz led me to believe the opposite. I continued to study  this matter and wrote a reseach paper in 2016, arguing that confessional jurisdiction is not supplied to  the independent traditionalist clergy, and suggesting that this one fact undermines their whole ministry.  I learned a lot from this project, but now I believe it was the wrong approach to the whole issue of  independent traditionalism, both in theory and in practice. In theory, because there are much better  arguments against the whole concept of independent traditionalism (to be set forth in this paper), and in practice, because traditionalists don't really care about jurisdiction. They think they must be right  because it just makes sense, whether or not they can prove it or can answer objections. The SSPX in  particular has been publishing nonsense about jurisdiction for decades, apparently without being  challenged publicly until John Salza did so in 2021. 

My original plan for this paper was to make the “all ministry requires mission” argument  against independent traditionalism, without pointing out any other Catholic pastors or churches that are  operating today. But my research led me to a treatise De Religione et Ecclesia, published in 1880 by  Fr. (later Cardinal) Camillo Mazzella, professor of theology at the Gregorian University. His treatise  on the Church is quite long and is packed with helpful details about important matters. Mazzella's  explanation of Unity, Apostolicity, and Authority left me no choice but to admit that independent  traditionalism implies that the Church has already defected. The visible successors of the Apostles –  the bishops in communion with each other and with the Holy See – make the Church's apostolicity  visible as a mark, and every man must join himself to their Church, not by professing the Catholic faith and doing one's own thing, but in the obvious sense of attending their churches and doing what they  say is necessary to become a member in good standing of their Church. It must be possible to do this  today, perhaps not everywhere in the world, but certainly somewhere, and probably in most places in  today's highly-interconnected world. The only possibility that is compatible with Catholic doctrine is  that the bishops of the “official Church,” the “Novus Ordo Church” as many traditionalists say, are the  successors of the Apostles, and their flock is the Catholic flock. 

This is not to say that all is well in the “official” Catholic Church today. It is clear that a major  crisis began in the 1960s. However, I think the true explanation is that God has allowed an upswing of  

Personal notes www.hoyletutoring.com/research 3

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

corruption within (not of ) the Church, while preserving the indefectibility of the universal church in its strict meaning. I may not be able to explain why this or that problem doesn't amount to a defection of  the Church, but I am sure that there must be some explanation other than that of the independent  traditionalists whose theories wreck the Church's visibility, unity, and apostolicity. 

Again, I believe that most independent traditionalists have good intentions and earnestly believe they are doing the right thing in a very difficult situation. I am not just saying this to be friendly. I find myself wondering how I didn't come to my current position many years earlier, despite having devoted  much time and energy to try to learn and practice the Catholic religion. It's disappointing; I thought my intentions were good and would have borne better fruit. But the past is past; one can only continue on  

with faith and hope, praying our merciful Savior to bring us all to a good end in spite of our own  failings. 

A lot of research has gone into this paper, but the reasoning is simple and the conclusions are  obvious if one reads and understands the sources presented. Unlike my research into confessional  jurisdiction, this study deals with subject matter that everyone can and should understand; in fact the  Church would be inadequate for her own mission unless all men could identify her as the true Church  of Christ by means of the four marks stated in the Nicene Creed (one, holy, catholic, apostolic). 

The draft version of this paper said that I would only publish it with permission from legitimate  ecclesiastical authority. But I've since come to understand that no imprimatur is needed to participate  in the public conversation about independent traditionalism vs. the mainstream Church; it's a matter for one's own conscience until proven otherwise. If my pastors ask me to correct or retract anything, or to  withdraw from publishing anything on religious matters, I will obey them. 

1. What is Independent Catholic Traditionalism? 

There are two categories of independent traditionalists: 

1. Sedevacantists, who reject the mainstream “Novus Ordo” novelties and abuses as amounting to  a new religion, corrupt in doctrine, morals, liturgy, and sacramental rites. They regard the  mainstream bishops and popes as non-Catholic impostors with no legitimate ecclesiastical  office or authority. The most prominent sedevacantist groups are led by Bishop Mark  Pivarunas, Bishop Donald Sanborn, and Bishop Charles McGuire (recent successor to Bp.  Daniel Dolan). 

2. Recognize-and-resisters, who reject what they regard as “Novus Ordo” novelties and abuses,  but recognize the mainstream Catholic bishops and popes as legitimate holders of ecclesiastical  office, yet lacking any right to the obedience of Catholics because of their doctrinal, moral,  liturgical, and sacramental errors. Most prominent is the Society of St. Pius X, founded by Abp. Marcel Lefebvre. 

The criticism presented in this paper is applicable to both groups, with slight variations that lead to the same conclusions. That is because both groups follow the same practical course of action: they  operate an ongoing full-scale independent priestly ministry, appealing to a state of emergency to justify  their doing so without a canonical mission. 

It is no exaggeration to say that the independent traditionalist ministry is full-scale; it must be,  because the reason for having it is that no other acceptable Catholic ministry is available. The choices  

1. What is Independent Catholic Traditionalism? www.hoyletutoring.com/research 4

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

are independent Catholic traditionalism or nothing. Thus the independent traditionalists must find a  way to provide basically all of the normal functions of Catholic life, and that's just what they do. Their  clergy routinely do the following: 

• Say Mass and distribute the Holy Eucharist publicly and regularly 

• Preach sermons and give catechetical instructions, publicly 

• Hear confessions of any person in any diocese 

• Administer Extreme Unction and Viaticum 

• Receive adult converts into the Church; witness their abjurations of heresy if needed • Grant dispensations, e.g. from fast and abstinence, impediments to priestly ordination • Confer baptism, witness marriages, conduct funerals 

• Build and consecrate public churches or chapels; consecrate altars 

• Found religious congregations and accept public religious vows 

• Found and operate seminaries 

• Administer the sacrament of Confirmation anywhere in the world 

• Choose and ordain candidates for Holy Orders 

• Assign to priests their place of residence and their duties (serving a chapel, teaching, etc.) • Discipline or expel priests and seminarians whose doctrine or behavior is unsatisfactory • Consecrate bishops, who typically assume the headship of a traditionalist community • Publicly claim the title of Pastor, most commonly in chapel bulletins 

• Instruct the members of their flock as to where they may or may not attend Mass 

This is a very broad ministry, hardly distinguishable from a lay point of view from the normal  full-scale ministry of a Catholic bishop or priest with a pastoral office or delegation. The difference  may be illustrated by listing the functions that (almost all) independent traditionalist clergy do not  perform, because they profess to lack the authority to do so. 

• Claim an ecclesiastical office, e.g. bishop of a diocese 

• Elect a pope 

2. Independent Catholic Traditionalism is wrong 

Most parts of this section do not include quotations, because the extensive space they require  would break up the flow of the argument. Quotations are collected in section 6. 

The universal Church is a unity of particular Churches, which are known to be Catholic by their communion with the Holy See. The particular Churches are divided by geographic territory, as  instituted by the Apostles; this method of division belongs to the Church's constitution. The chief  pastor of each particular Church is its bishop, whose authority is truly personal and is attached to his  office. That is to say, each diocesan bishop governs in his own name, not merely as a representative of  the pope. The existence of a bishopric in communion with Rome is what makes a particular Church;  otherwise it would be mission territory. 

The order of priests is subject to that of bishops in theory and in practice. A priest must receive  his ordination and his pastoral assignment from a bishop; he cannot get them any other way. The  

2. Independent Catholic Traditionalism is wrong www.hoyletutoring.com/research 5

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

priests of a diocese do not minister in their own names, but act as agents commissioned by the bishop.  By granting faculties to priests, deacons, and even to laymen, a bishop empowers them to carry out  certain aspects of the bishop's own ministry and authority. 

If an episcopal see becomes vacant, the episcopal jurisdiction may pass to an administrator or a  committee, as provided by law, until a successor bishop is appointed to govern the See. During such a  vacancy, priests retain the ordinary faculties that they had previously received. The diocese remains in  visible unity with the rest of the Church, and is still governed by the Holy See. 

The powers to teach, sanctify, and govern in the Church can only be granted originally by divine power, as they pertain to the supernatural order. These powers were originally bestowed by Jesus  Christ upon the Apostles when He founded the Church. By the Church's divine constitution, these  Apostolic powers must be passed down in an unbroken succession to Catholic bishops, by whom  Christ's own mission is continued upon earth. Only by those bishops, the true successors of the  Apostles, can a share in Apostolic duties be legitimately bestowed upon priests and other ministers. 

The distinguishing mark of an independent ministry, as the term is used in this study, is the lack  of any appointment, authorization, or permission from a legitimate successor of the Apostles – neither  by personal act nor by law. The proponents of independent ministry typically argue that it is authorized by ecclesiastical or divine law; this will be addressed in the objections (section 4). For now, it will be  taken as an obvious fact (as it is in reality) that the traditionalist ministry described in section 1 is  independent. 

The perceived need for an independent ministry only arises if, in some place and time, there is  no possible recourse to Catholic clergy who are authorized ministers of the word and the sacraments.  Either such ministers were never there in the first place, or they died out or became corrupt. 

It might happen in some particular place, say on the outskirts of civilization, that not a single  authorized Catholic minister can be found. Then the question arises: may a visiting Catholic priest  carry out all of the usual ministry of a priest with typical diocesan faculties, although in fact he has  none? This is an interesting question; thus far I have not found a clear and detailed answer from a  theologian or canonist. 

Fortunately, that is not the situation for today's independent traditionalists. They admit that Pius XII was a true pope, and that the bishops in communion with him in 1958 were the Catholic bishops.  Pope Pius XII and his bishops have had visible successors up to the present day; those successors have  claimed to be Catholic prelates and have been regarded as such by almost everyone, and they have  carried on a public Christian ministry of the word and the sacraments. But this ministry is not  acceptable to the traditionalists, and that is why they operate independently. So it is very clear: the  independent traditionalist claim is that the Catholic clergy have become corrupt, and as the  traditionalist ministry is worldwide, the corruption that justifies it must logically be worldwide also.  And, crucially, this corruption is said to affect even the men commonly recognized as popes by the  local church of Rome and by the college of bishops. 

The problem with this scenario is twofold: (1) such corruption of the Catholic hierarchy is  impossible because it would falsify the Church's apostolicity, and (2) the traditionalist reaction cannot  be right in any case, because it violates the Church's unity and apostolicity. 

2. Independent Catholic Traditionalism is wrong www.hoyletutoring.com/research 6

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

2.1. Apostolic succession – public and perennial 

The Church's indefectibility requires that all her internal and external properties and  endowments remain intact until the end of time. Among these properties is Apostolicity. The Church must be Apostolic by her origin, her doctrine, and her succession of ministers. The  succession of ministers is the visible aspect of Apostolicity; it is apparent even to non-Catholics and to  non-scholars, and thus it serves as a mark of the Church. The apostolicity of the Church's origin and  doctrine are matters of history and theology that are proved by evidence and reasoning, but most people are unable to obtain that evidence or to follow that reasoning. It is different with regard to succession:  the names of the Catholic bishops who govern particular churches in union with the Holy See are  public knowledge. There may be a hidden defect – e.g. invalid ordination – that prevents some  individual bishop from being a true successor of the Apostles, but the Catholic bishops as a body have  by far the strongest visible claim to Apostolic succession of anyone in the world. In fact they are the  only people who can reasonably claim to be the bishops of a Church that is one and Catholic  (universal), as opposed to local or national. Thus, if the visible Catholic bishops are not the successors  of the Apostles, then there are no successors, and the Church has defected. But that is impossible;  therefore the Catholic bishops must be the true successors.1 

Once the mark of Apostolicity is identified by the succession of pastors, it is reasonable to trust  divine providence to maintain the other aspects of apostolicity. Thus Apostolicity of succession  guarantees apostolicity of origin and of doctrine, valid ordination, and valid and holy liturgical and  sacramental rites. 

There is no room for doubt about the meaning of Apostolic succession. To be a true successor,  one must hold the same ordinary pastoral office in the Church that the Apostles held (which excludes  their extraordinary personal infallibility and worldwide jurisdiction). Merely to exercise a power  similar to that of the Apostles is not enough. To become their true successor, one must receive valid  episcopal consecration, which confers the sacramental powers of a bishop, and also a valid canonical  appointment to govern a part of the Church. These two aspects of episcopal power are called orders  and jurisdiction. Each successor of the Apostles must be in communion with the Roman Pontiff; this is the test of his legitimacy in office. In case of doubt, it is for the pope to determine which bishops are  legitimate successors of the Apostles, as the pope is the center of unity, and the power to make a man a  successor of the Apostles properly belongs to him alone. 

The Church must at all times have visible successors of the Apostles because without them, she  would lose those of her properties that cannot exist without legitimate pastors: visibility, unity, and  government. 

See section 6.1 for quotations explaining that living successors are needed at all times. 2.2. Visibility, unity, government 

If it were no longer possible to identify the Catholic Church – as a visible organization united in government, not as a loose association of like-minded people – then she would have defected by  ceasing to show forth externally the properties that make her knowable and credible to all men. In such a scenario, the Church herself, along with the means of salvation, would be hidden. A hidden Church is the very opposite of the Church founded by Jesus Christ: a city on a hill, a light to the nations. It  belongs to her nature, as established by Christ, that her existence as a society, her unity, and her  

1 This is not an error of logic, because the purpose of the marks is to identify the one true Church of Christ, after having established that such a Church must exist and be identifiable as such until the end of the world. 

2.2. Visibility, unity, government www.hoyletutoring.com/research 7

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

Apostolicity must be externally visible. If they were not, then the divine command that all must enter  the Church under pain of damnation would be nonsensical, because people wouldn't be able to find and identify the Church, which they must do in order to join it. 

If one could not name any living bishops who are certainly successors of the Apostles, then the  basic building blocks of the Church's visible unity of government would be missing. Without those  building blocks, unity itself would cease to exist, and the Church would cease to be visible as an  organization. Again, this would make it impossible to find the Catholic Church, much less to join it,  because one does that by entering into the visible unity of faith and government under the headship of  the legitimate Catholic pastors, namely the bishops who are successors of the Apostles. 

Also, without legitimate pastors the Church would lack the living magisterium that produces  and maintains her unity of faith. It is morally impossible for people to remain united in faith who have  no authoritative teacher or judge. Disagreements are sure to arise, and there will be no way to settle  them. 

If there were no legitimate pastors, there would be nobody to teach, sanctify, and govern the  Church because these functions were committed only to the Apostles and their successors. A Church  that cannot teach, sanctify, and govern is a failure because it can't do the most necessary things to  achieve its purpose: the salvation of souls. The only authority to teach, sanctify, and govern in the  Church is that which was originally bestowed upon the Apostles and is passed down to their legitimate  successors in each generation. If that authority were to disappear from the world at any time, there  would be no way to revive it, because there would be no pope to appoint bishops, and no bishops to  elect a pope. Men with valid episcopal orders might remain alive, but that's not sufficient because  orders alone do not grant any office, authority, or mission to function as a Catholic pastor. 

In summary: the Church must at all times be taught, sanctified, and governed by bishops who  are true successors of the Apostles. This is evident because these functions must always exist in the  Church, and they can only be lawfully carried out by ministers with Apostolic authority, as that is the  only authority that exists in the Church. 

2.3. Ministry without authority? 

Independent traditionalists commonly say that they merely provide the sacraments out of  charity in a time of need, without claiming any ecclesiastical office or authority. Thus they believe that  their operation cannot possibly be schismatic, for lack of intent to break away from legitimate  ecclesiastical authority. It's not about authority, they would say, it's just about the sacraments. 

In fact, the idea that any priest may carry on an independent ministry in order to meet a need for the sacraments, as long as he doesn't usurp any office or authority, is a bizarre theory. It doesn't  compute with Catholic doctrine regarding mission. 

The fundamental error is that it's possible to function as a pastor without claiming to be a pastor. The truth is that the very fact of functioning as a pastor IS a claim to be a pastor, and is practically  treated as such by the vast majority of people involved with independent traditionalist chapels, both  clergy and laymen. The following sections demonstrate these points. 

Priestly ministry implies and requires authority 

There is a clear case based on Catholic authors and authorities, that it is unlawful, illegitimate,  opposed to Apostolicity and to the hierarchical constitution of Church, to act as a minister of the word  

2.3. Ministry without authority? www.hoyletutoring.com/research 8

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

and the sacraments without being authorized for that ministry by ecclesiastical or divine authority. A  minister of the word and the sacraments necessarily presents himself as a representative of Jesus  Christ, which he cannot be without being commissioned by the Church (the depositary on earth of the  New Covenant mission received originally from Christ) or extraordinarily by Christ Himself. 

The idea that a man may presume to enter the priesthood or to exercise its functions without  such a commission, because Catholics would otherwise lack the sacraments, and/or because he doesn't  claim any authority, simply does not occur in any of the numerous books I have consulted on the topic.  Instead it is implicitly ruled out, and in a handful of sources is explicitly rejected. 

Here are a few selections that are very clear and concise regarding the need for all ministry to be authorized (bold emphasis added): 

Council of Trent: If any one saith, … that those who have neither been rightly ordained, nor sent, by  ecclesiastical and canonical power, but come from elsewhere, are lawful ministers of the word and of  the sacraments; let him be anathema. 

Rev. Sylvester Berry: All power in the Church was originally conferred upon the Apostles, to the  exclusion of all others, and there is not the slightest intimation in Scripture or tradition that Christ  promised to confer a similar power upon others at any time in the future. 

Rev. Walter Devivier: Who are the unlawful pastors to whom nobody is obliged to submit, we learn  from Christ Himself: “They are those that enter not by the door into the sheepfold, but climb up  another way.” (John 10, 1) To all so-called evangelizers, who hold no divine commission, and lack  jurisdiction over the flock, can be rightly applied what the Lord says of false prophets: “I did not  send them, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied.” (Jer. 23, 21) For, two  conditions are required to constitute a legitimate Christian pastor, a divine vocation and preaching  God's revealed word. 

Rev. Francis De Zulueta: Moreover – and this is the main point – since men need to know the genuine envoy of Christ from the spurious one, the fact of this transmission of authority must be a visible,  tangible fact, capable of being investigated and tested. Hence the process by which the alleged  minister of today has personally had the right which he claims passed on to him must be susceptible of  intelligible proof from appreciable facts. The right to guide my precious, immortal soul amid the  deceitful shoals of this life, claimed by the Rev. So-and-so, must rest not merely on the fact that he is arrayed clerically, functions as a clergyman in some ecclesiastical-looking building, or in Hyde  Park, or that he asserts, or takes for granted, or inwardly feels that he is sent by Christ. His inward  “spiritual experience” of a call and of a mission, if not a delusion, may possibly justify him in  conscience for claiming my submission; but, being beyond my ken, it will not suffice my conscience  for yielding it. No; if I am duly alive to the seriousness of salvation, I shall need more than all this:  namely, that the man before me be able to trace definitely and intelligibly the pedigree of his pastoral  office step by step back to the Divine Shepherd, the Supreme and Invisible Head of the Christian  Church, from whom all spiritual jurisdiction must needs flow to His earthly ministers. 

Cardinal James Gibbons: Not only is it required that ministers of the Gospel should conform their  teaching to the doctrine of the Apostles, but also that these ministers should be ordained and  commissioned by the Apostles or their legitimate successors. "Neither doth any man," says the  

2.3. Ministry without authority? www.hoyletutoring.com/research 9

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

Apostle, "take the honor to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was." (Heb. v. 4) This text  evidently condemns all self-constituted preachers and reformers; for, "how shall they preach, unless  they be sent?" (Rom. x. 15) Sent, of course, by legitimate authority, and not directed by their own  caprice. Hence, we find that those who succeeded the Apostles were ordained and commissioned by  them to preach, and that no others were permitted to exercise this function. 

United States Catholic Magazine: But there is another condition [besides valid ordination] absolutely required in order to be linked with the ministry of the apostles, viz: a lawful mission, or authoritative  faculty given by one to whom this right belongs, of preaching, administering the sacraments, and  performing the other sacred functions conducive to the sanctification and salvation of souls. Without  this regular mission, which the very name of apostle (envoy) implies and presupposes, any one who  presumes to exercise a part of the ecclesiastical duties of his own accord, is, both in the eyes of  reason and of faith, a profane intruder, usurping a charge which does not belong to him, and he has  no title, no right, no power, and no jurisdiction in the church. … Even in civil society, no one is allowed to thrust himself into a public employment unless he is called to it by lawful authority; how much less  can any one be allowed to do this in the church of Christ, in that society whose author and founder is  the Son of God? 

Section 6.3 contains many more quotations along these lines, and quotes some of the above  passages at greater length. And section 6.3 is itself an abridgement of a much larger collection. 

To repeat: thus far, I have found many sources teaching the necessity of authorization for all  ministry of the word and the sacraments, but I have not found a single source teaching the independent  traditionalist idea that in case of necessity, anyone may presume permission to receive priestly  ordination and to act as a minister of the word and the sacraments. No doubt the law allows Catholics  in extreme necessity to approach even a non-Catholic minister for the sacraments if certain conditions  are met, but this is no exception to the rule because the law authorizes his ministry in such cases.2 But  there is no such law authorizing a ministry like that of the independent traditionalists. 

Please let me know if you've found any Catholic source saying that in certain cases of necessity, a man may become a priest and/or undertake a ministry of the word and the sacraments without being  commissioned either by ecclesiastical authority (with evidence to prove the commission), or by Christ  Himself (with miracles to prove the commission). 

The Traditionalist Clergy Necessarily Have a de facto Authority 

The position of the traditionalist clergy is defined far more effectively by their actions than by  their verbal explanations of their emergency ministry. The whole business of their lives is to function  as Catholic clergy, and (collectively) as the only suitable ministers of the word and the sacraments who  now exist. Thus, whatever the catechism says about the authority of priests and bishops, the laity  naturally apply to the traditionalist clergy under whose care their entire practice of religion takes place. 

To carry on a traditionalist priestly ministry is to make a powerful claim to be a pastor. This is a case where actions speak louder than words. It would be silly to say “I am not a driver” while driving a 

2 Billot, De Ecclesiae Sacramentis, Book I, Thesis 16: “Note well that the faculty of ministering flows from the Catholic  Church in any case, even to a heretic, schismatic, or vitandus, that is, in case of necessity, as provided by the well-known rule of law. Thus he who baptizes or absolves in such necessity is no longer an illegitimate minister, as is clear.” 

2.3. Ministry without authority? www.hoyletutoring.com/research 10

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

car; much more, to devote one's life to pastoral work – the ministry of the word and the sacraments –  while claiming not to be a pastor. 

Traditionalist clergy, especially bishops, have a moral and practical leadership that is very real  because the people acknowledge it. The traditionalist clergy are very far from discouraging this; rather, they encourage it, expect it, and in some cases demand it. Thus, for them to claim not to have authority is empty verbiage. In practice it counts for nothing except to explain why they cannot get together and  elect a pope, or why (according to some of them) they can't judge marriage cases or dispense from  marriage impediments. In a sense, a modern traditionalist bishop is actually more powerful than a  diocesan ordinary in normal times, because (1) the traditionalist bishop is restrained by no flesh-and blood superior and no geographical boundaries, and (2) he decides for himself to what extent  ecclesiastical laws are applicable in today's circumstances. If he goes wrong, there is nobody to correct him or to punish him. 

If it is impossible for traditionalist clergy to function without a real practical authority, this  supports the view that the position they have created is simply impossible in the Catholic Church,  because it is clear that the only possible authority in the Catholic Church is that which descends  legitimately from the Apostles. 

2.4. The independent traditionalist church is defective 

The independent traditionalist position implies that the Church has already defected, by the  universal defection of her bishops. It says that the doctrine, ritual, and law of the “conciliar church” are so corrupt that to regard its bishops as the Catholic hierarchy would disprove the Church's  indefectibility. But, the independent traditionalists do not appreciate that the alternative is just as bad:  if one says the “conciliar” bishops are not the Catholic hierarchy for whatever reason (ineligible for  office because of heresy, evil intentions, etc.), then the Church defected because her hierarchy died out.  So it's a defection of the Church either way. The only way to have a non-defected Catholic Church is  for the post-1958 doctrine, ritual, and law of the visible Catholic hierarchy to be at least minimally  faithful to the true Catholic religion. 

One can see this from what Pope Pius IX said about the “old Catholics” who refused to accept  the definitions of the First Vatican Council: 

… They obstinately reject and oppose the infallible magisterium both of the Roman  Pontiff and of the whole Church in teaching matters. Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the  Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of  faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the  Ecumenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and  blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and  the bishops have erred. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the  person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief  or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head.3 

Pope Pius IX accused the “old Catholics” of holding that the Church had defected. Now  obviously, they didn't profess to believe that; they carried on an independent ministry, thinking they  

3 Pope Pius IX, Etsi Multa, 21 November 1873. https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9etsimu.htm 2.4. The independent traditionalist church is defective www.hoyletutoring.com/research 11

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

were in the Church and it hadn't defected. But Pius IX is right that their position necessarily means the  Church defected, whether they realize it or not. And the exact same thing is true of today's independent traditionalists, for very similar reasons. 

Next we will consider the defects and contradictions of the ministry that independent  traditionalists attempt to carry on without any legitimate pastors. 

Lacking the marks of Apostolicity and unity, the independent traditionalist church can only  identify itself by the two pseudo-marks typically claimed by Protestants: the preaching of the true word of God, and the administration of the true sacraments. These are the actual tests used by independent  traditionalists to decide what is a suitable place to attend Mass and receive the sacraments. It seems  like an easy enough task to look for doctrine, Mass, and sacraments matching those of the Catholic  Church before 1965. But in fact, it's quite difficult, even impossible for most people to figure this out  for themselves. That's why the Church relies on her four marks as a public proof of her identity and  credibility, suitable to all men. Consider these questions that independent traditionalists must answer  without help from anyone in authority: 

1. Who is a valid priest or bishop? The main point of contention is the validity of the new rites of  holy orders; there are many traditionalists on each side of this question. There are several lesser  but significant disputes: whether Abp. Thuc's episcopal consecrations were valid, whether Abp.  Lefebvre was a valid bishop, whether some of Abp. Lefebvre's ordinations were invalid because  he used only one hand. Hardly anyone is able to investigate such questions for himself; that is a  job for a Roman Congregation. But nowadays each traditionalist must decide for himself,  typically by accepting a scholarly presentation made by some priest or layman who has no  authority, and quite possibly is not qualified to be writing on the subject. 

2. Where may one attend Mass? Is it enough for the Mass to be valid and the priest to call himself  a Roman Catholic? Does it matter who, if anyone, the priest recognizes as his superior? Does it  matter who is named as pope in the canon of the Mass? 

3. Who is a member of the Church? This is a matter of the external forum, with important  consequences for the reception of sacraments, especially matrimony. As a practical matter, it's up  to each independent traditionalist organization or priest to decide who to regard as a member.  Almost all independent traditionalists regard adults coming from the “Novus Ordo” as members  of the Catholic Church, but why? A common answer is that the “Novus Ordo” hasn't yet been  condemned for the heretical sect that in fact it already is – but given that every man with a  colorable claim to be a Catholic prelate belongs to that “Novus Ordo” organization, who could  ever condemn it? Anyone who did would be just another independent. 

Some independent traditionalists may wish to recognize the members of the mainstream  Catholic Church as actual Catholics, but that recognition is not necessarily reciprocated. An adult  who was raised in independent traditionalism is outside the Church's unity of government; thus a  profession of faith and formal reception into the Church may be required, which makes perfect  sense given that the mainstream Catholic Church does have actual government and a public legal  order, unlike the independent traditionalists. And finally, the very independent traditionalists who  say they have no jurisdiction in the external forum receive adult converts e.g. from Protestantism,  which is obviously an act requiring jurisdiction in the external forum. 

2.4. The independent traditionalist church is defective www.hoyletutoring.com/research 12

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

The point here is not that confusion and disagreement on such matters could never arise in the  true Catholic Church governed by legitimate bishops. It is that independent traditionalists lack any  authority that could ever settle such disputes, which are of great practical importance. Their very  independence makes them just as separate from each other as they are from Catholic unity of  government. 

It is obvious that the functional unity of the Church, established and maintained by the center of unity in the See of Rome, becomes meaningless if anybody may build independently “upon the rock of  Peter” when he sees fit to do so. The only real unity in that situation is that all the independent  traditionalist builders promise to be subject to some future pope whose eligibility and legitimate  election are sufficiently clear. But in the meantime, such traditionalists have no visible unity of  government – not with each other, and not with the Holy See. 

This is made more clear by the pattern of repeated splits seen among independent traditionalists, which is a mark of schism. Once the authority of the Church is either denied or lost, there is no power  that can maintain unity, so the innate human desires for independence and for control lead to repeated  splits. The SSPX is the grandfather sect of independent traditionalism; from it have come the SSPV,  IMBC, SGG, RCI, SSPX-MC, Priestly Union of Marcel Lefebvre, and a large number of independent  priests. 

The need for ecclesiastical authority is inescapable. As a practical matter, independent Catholic  traditionalist groups and individuals require teaching, sacraments, and leadership, and these functions  will be or must be performed by bishops and priests. With the passage of time, many independent  traditionalists naturally come to believe that somehow their clergy do have authority, or even that they  must have authority. Such views are rapidly gaining traction nowadays among sedevacantists. 

The problem, as explained in section 2.3, is that it's nonsensical for bishops and priests to run a  full-scale public ministry with no mission or authority. All ministry of the word and the sacraments  requires a mission – that is, for the minister to be sent directly or indirectly by divine authority – and all ordinary mission in the Church proceeds from the original Apostolic mission bestowed upon the  Apostles by Christ Himself. One can obtain a share in the Church's ordinary mission: 

1. by obtaining an ecclesiastical office 

2. by delegation from a prelate, either personally or by operation of law 

Two things that certainly do not suffice to grant a mission are: 

1. the sacrament of Holy Orders 

2. the choice, approval, or empowerment by a secular government or by the laity 

In light of these indisputable facts, there are only two plausible ways for the independent  traditionalists to claim a mission. First, that something in the Church's general law authorizes their  ministry. Second, that authorization comes from Christ Himself, or from the divine law. 

To evaluate the theories by which ecclesiastical law might authorize the ministry of independent traditionalists is a major undertaking, requiring substantial research and scholarship. This is a problem  because the laity can't do that for themselves, so in practice they believe it on the word of some  independent traditionalist leader. But such men have no authority, can easily be wrong, and do not  deserve to be blindly followed on anything, much less on a matter of such importance. Some legal theories to legitimate the independent traditionalist ministry are discussed in section  

2.4. The independent traditionalist church is defective www.hoyletutoring.com/research 13

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

4. For now, it suffices to say that even if one could find a legal justification for traditionalist ministry,  that would not create legitimate pastors, and thus it would not solve the problems previously discussed: lack of unity of government and lack of Apostolicity, especially as a mark of the Church. The practical  result would be just what we see now: a tangle of overlapping and competing ministries, with no  practical way to return to ecclesiastical normalcy by electing a pope or by creating bishops with a  recognized right to govern as true successors of the Apostles. 

The second possibility is that authorization for independent traditionalist ministry comes from  Christ Himself, or from the divine law. Most traditionalists seem not to realize that this is an argument  for extraordinary mission. In New Covenant times, the ordinary mission is that which is transmitted in a visible and lawful manner in the Church. Any other mission is extraordinary, and must be proved by  miracles in order to be credible. Miracles are the only possible proof of God's direct and extraordinary  authorization or mission, because in the nature of the case no other evidence exists. Thus, both Moses  and Jesus Christ worked miracles to prove their mission. 

Many theologians say that extraordinary mission is not even possible under the New Covenant.  In any case, the independent traditionalists clearly are not working miracles, so they can't possibly have an extraordinary mission. That leaves them with no credible evidence of having any mission from  God. In fact, I think the lack of miracles by the independent traditionalists is a good argument against  their having an ordinary mission by some clever legal theory. Such theories are not sufficiently  credible, especially to the majority of Catholics who are not scholars; thus, the only practical means to  establish the legitimacy of the independent traditionalist ministry is miracles. But God has chosen not to accredit their ministry in this way. 

3. The solution: traditionalism without independence 

Anyone who wants to be a good Catholic nowadays can see that these are troubled times for the Church. Whatever you think of the program of sweeping change that started with Vatican II and  produced a new Mass, new sacramental rites, new liturgical practices that include shocking departures  from traditional norms, new code of canon law, etc., it is obvious that the faith, morals, and sheer  numbers of Catholic laity, clergy, and religious are far worse now than in 1960. Whether the program  of sweeping change produced the bad results, or whether it was merely a catalyst that let loose a rush of pent-up evil (like the selling of indulgences was a catalyst for Protestantism), could be debated. But  the thing to keep foremost in mind, as the antidote to independent traditionalism, is that without a  visible hierarchy there is no Catholic Church; thus, to be Catholic nowadays one simply must say that  today's Catholic Church – the one with the diocesan bishops in visible communion with the Apostolic  See – maintains the indefectibility guaranteed to her by Christ her founder and head. 

It is not necessary to explain how each apparent problem in today's Catholic Church is  compatible with her indefectibility. That has always been the job of scholarly controversialists, not of  everybody. If you are among the rare individuals with the ability and the desire to get involved in that,  may God bless your work and grant you wisdom and insight. 

Sometimes the explanation for a perceived problem with the “Novus Ordo” church is that it's  completely fine, because it's within the Church's power and does not contradict any Catholic doctrine.  This is my view of the New Mass itself, the use of vernacular languages, free-standing altar, priest  facing the people; also the other new sacramental rites and the doctrine of collegiality. In cases where  something really is amiss, it is helpful to know some broadly-applicable reasons why this could occur  without the Church having defected: 

3. The solution: traditionalism without independence www.hoyletutoring.com/research 14

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

1. It was done by particular individuals or churches, not by the universal Church. 2. It is an abuse that goes against what the Church actually teaches or prescribes. 3. It is not a definitive judgment; therefore, one is free to hold a contrary opinion that is backed by  at least some Catholic theologians. 

4. It is legally null and void because it's illegal or was invalidly promulgated. 

Armed with these reasons, it should be possible to settle one's mind that the Church has not  defected, and that it is still necessary and possible to join her as a member. That being settled, there  will naturally be a variety of ways that people discern their own obligations in their own concrete  circumstances. The ease with which one can join the Catholic Church and fulfill one's religious duties  will vary from place to place; it always has. There may be places where the legitimate pastors are so  corrupt that they would refuse to receive into the Church someone who believes rightly on some point  of modern controversy. In some places, what goes on at Mass might be too scandalous to be able to  attend in good conscience. One might succeed in joining the local church, but then feel obliged to  avoid it except as necessary to fulfill one's strict obligations of Mass attendance etc. One might attend  a better church that is farther away, or move to be near it. 

In this life we all must fight our way toward truth and goodness, often with inadequate  knowledge or experience. We must take risks for what we believe is right, knowing that things may  turn out badly in spite of our best efforts. In the present state of the world, I believe that practically  everyone – even the most virtuous, the most intelligent, the most knowledgeable – is or has been wrong about something very important. Perhaps that has always been true. Since the Garden of Eden, it has  been God's plan for men to face adversity, often great adversity, without losing hope that He will bring  us to a good end if we obey our conscience, cooperate with grace, and have the humility to change  course when we see that we have gone wrong. Fortunately, Jesus Christ came to give us ample means  of salvation, more than enough to compensate for our own failings, if only we will cooperate with His  grace. Thus we should be cheerful and brave, knowing that it is His will to bring us to a good end,  even if we make errors of judgment in handling today's crisis. 

I'm not recommending any local parish situation as the best nowadays. That's beyond my  knowledge and experience. Disagreement on such questions is inevitable, and in my opinion is healthy and constructive. I hope today's explosive growth of online journalism and communication will help  Catholics to become more united and more correct about what's happening nowadays and how to deal  with it. Good and evil that were unknown or were disguised by dishonest media are now becoming  known to anyone with eyes to see. 

4. Objections I – in favor of independent traditionalism 

The following objections are to be answered in the long version of this study. If you have other  objections, please let me know (see first page for email address). 

• What came first must be right 

• Following our faithful clergy 

• Formal unity of government, as during the Great Western Schism 

• Laymen may attend any Catholic Mass 

• When does disobedience become schism? 

• Tacit consent of the Holy See; historical precedent for episcopal consecrations 4. Objections I – in favor of independent traditionalism www.hoyletutoring.com/research 15

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

• Cassiciacum Thesis (material-formal theory) 

• Traditionalist Priests, Legitimate Sacraments by Fr. Cekada 

• Traditionalist ministry is now legitimized by custom 

• State of necessity / Ecclesia supplet 

• Canon 2261 allows Catholics to request the sacraments from trad clergy 

• Following a probable opinion in case of necessity 

• Theory of an empty hierarchy 

• Hierarchy reduced to an unnamed handful of bishops 

• Traditionalist bishops have a canonical mission 

• Legitimate authority devolves to traditionalist bishops 

• Overemphasis on Mazzella 

5. Objections II – against the “conciliar” church 

• The Conciliar Church teaches false doctrine 

• It's impossible to be docile to the Conciliar popes and bishops 

• No unity of faith in the Novus Ordo / automatic loss of office 

• The New Mass and/or the new sacramental rites are invalid 

6. Quotations 

6.1. The Apostolic College cannot die out 

First Vatican Council, Session IV, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, 18 July 1870.  (Denzinger 1821) 

Latin: https://archive.org/details/a611568300vatiuoft/page/180/mode/2up 

English: https://archive.org/details/decreesvatican00mcnauoft/page/34/mode/2up 

The Eternal Pastor and Bishop of our souls, in order to continue for all time the life-giving work of His Redemption, determined to build up the Holy Church, wherein, as in the house of the living  God, all who believe might be united in the bond of one faith and one charity. Wherefore, before He  entered into His glory, He prayed unto the Father, not for the Apostles only, but for those also who  through their preaching should come to believe in Him, that all might be one, even as He the Son and  the Father are one (John xvii, 21). As then He sent the Apostles whom He had chosen to Himself  from the world, as He Himself had been sent by the Father; so He willed that there should ever  be pastors and teachers in His Church to the end of the world. 

Rev. George Agius, Tradition and the Church. Boston: Stratford, 1928. pp. 39-43. https://archive.org/details/traditionchurch00agiu/page/n5/mode/2up 

Establishment of Divine Tradition, That Is, of an Apostolic Succession: An Ever Living  and Official Body to Govern the Church 

6.1. The Apostolic College cannot die out www.hoyletutoring.com/research 16

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

Authority and obedience are two essential characteristics in the Church of Jesus Christ. If one  is wanting, the other cannot exist, and the result can only be anarchy. 

We rest this conclusion on the conditions of human nature and the constitution of the Church, as it appears historically in the Scriptures. We shall now examine thoroughly the words of our Lord,  addressed to the Apostles, as the first heads and legislators of the Church; and then the manner, in  which the Apostles carried out His command. 

We do not contend that Christ could not have given His Church another system, than that  which He was pleased to choose. We simply state, that, since He established a certain form of  government, that form must remain. It is essential for the life of the Church. If changed, the  whole Church is changed. 

Our task, therefore, is to show that in the institution of the Apostolate, Christ intended that  there should be an ever living body of men to continue His work to the end of time. In other  words, in choosing the twelve Apostles as the first propagators of His Divine Religion, He also  established a perpetual apostolic succession with the authority of teaching In His name. To be  plain, He intended that the Apostles should appoint and ordain others to succeed them in their  office, who in turn would appoint and ordain others to preach the Gospel, and rule the Church,  and so to the end of the world. 

The government of the Church, after the death of the Apostles, is to be homogeneous with the  original one. Its progress will be perfectly identical with that of the Apostolic government. No  substantial change or modification of government will be suffered in the future; no different economy,  no differently established order. 

St. Robert Bellarmine, Controversies. 

https://books.google.com/books?id=LstYAdj14wwC&pg=PA69#v=onepage&q&f=false  

[T]wo things may be considered with regard to Bishops. First, that they hold the place of  Christ, and that on this account we owe them obedience, and that they cannot deceive us in those things that are necessary for salvation. Secondly, that they have the power of Orders, and of Jurisdiction. As  to the first, we are certain with an infallible certitude that they, whom we see, are our true Bishops and  Pastors. For their being such requires neither faith, nor the character of orders, nor legitimate election,  but only that they be regarded as such by the Church. For as bishops are for the Church, not the other  way around, God assists them, who are held to be such, that they may not err in teaching the Church.  Therefore they are true Bishops, and Pastors, not absolutely, but as regards those three things that we  said. Which is the same as if we were to say, that they are not indeed true Bishops in themselves (in  se), but as long as they are regarded as such by the Church, they are owed obedience, as even an  erroneous conscience obliges; moreover, they hold the place of Christ, in fact not in law (de facto non  de jure), while they actually rule the people in the name of Christ. Besides, the Church cannot be  deceived by them, as the Church cannot err, and yet she is bound to follow them whom she regards as  true Pastors. This last is only to be understood, if for instance this kind of Bishops all agree in doctrine, or are supreme Pontiffs. For there is no doubt that particular Bishops, if they dissent from the others,  can err. If they are considered in the second way [i.e. as to Orders and Jurisdiction], we do not  have certitude, unless it be moral, that these are true Bishops, although it is certain by infallible  certitude that at least some are true, otherwise God would have abandoned the Church. But that  we may have a certain and conspicuous Church, as regards the head and the members, the first  consideration suffices. (p. 69) 

6.1. The Apostolic College cannot die out www.hoyletutoring.com/research 17

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

The fifth note [of the Church] is the Succession of Bishops in the Roman Church from the  Apostles unto us; for on this account it is called Apostolic. And therefore all the ancients made use of  this succession as a most evident argument in order to show forth the true Church. … But that the force of this argument be better understood, some things are to be noted. First, that the Church cannot in  any way be without Pastors and Bishops, as Cyprian rightly teaches in epist. 9 lib. 4, where he  says, “The Church is the people united to the Bishop, and the Bishop is in the Church, and the  Church in the Bishop.” Thus Jerome, lib. contra Luciferianos: “That is not the Church, which  does not have Priests.” This is clearly proved by Paul in Ephesians 4: “And he gave some apostles,  and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, For the perfecting  of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Until we all meet etc.”  Here the Apostle teaches, that pastors will be in the Church until the day of judgment; for then  we shall meet the Lord in the unity of faith, in a perfect man, in the measure of the age of the  fullness of Christ. But that Bishops are Pastors of his flock, the same Apostle teaches by Luke in  Acts 20. “Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you  bishops, to rule the church of God.” But not even Luther denies this, but rather in lib. de Eccl. & Conc. among the notes of the Church he puts, to have true pastors. From this it follows, that it is not the true Church, which either has no pastors, or has such as are not true pastors. (pp. 88-89) 

Rev. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, 1927. pp. 138- 141, 143-44. 

https://archive.org/details/TheChurchOfChristAnApologeticAndDogmaticTreatiseBerryRev.E.Sylveste r5729.o/page/n78/mode/1up  

Finally, the Church is Apostolic in ministry (or succession), because the authority which Christ  conferred upon the Apostles has come down through an unbroken line of legitimate successors in the  ministry of the Church. … It is evident that authority can be transmitted only by legitimate succession;  therefore, the Church must have a legitimate, or formal, succession of pastors to transmit apostolic  authority from age to age. … It is not sufficient, therefore, that a church have valid Orders; it must  also have a legitimate succession of ministers, reaching back in an unbroken line to the Apostles, upon  whom our Lord conferred all authority to rule His Church. 

pp. 272-73 

All power in the Church was originally conferred upon the Apostles, to the exclusion of all  others, and there is not the slightest intimation in Scripture or tradition that Christ promised to confer a  similar power upon others at any time in the future. It follows, then, that all power, whether or Orders  or jurisdiction, must be perpetuated by an unbroken line of succession, reaching back to the Apostles,  who received it directly from Christ Himself. This is clearly intimated in the words of Christ to the  Apostles: “Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.” Christ was with His  Apostles during their life on earth; He remains with them in their successors through all the centuries.  Therefore, succession is a matter of divine institution, and those who occupy the place of the Apostles  in the Church, obtain also their power and authority; they obtain it independently of any action on the  part of the faithful, and exercise it by divine right. 

6.1. The Apostolic College cannot die out www.hoyletutoring.com/research 18

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

Brunsmann, Rev. John, S.V.D. A Handbook of Fundamental Theology. Adapted and edited by  Rev. Arthur Preuss. St. Louis: B. Herder, 1931. vol. III. 

The Church of Christ will continue to the end of time, unchanged in all her essential elements,  one of which is the ordinary and legitimate Apostolic succession of her teachers and rulers. For the  same reason she will never at any time lack the missio ordinaria and apostolica [ordinary and apostolic mission]. Consequently, there is no room for an extraordinary mission (missio extraordinaria) of the  kind invented by orthodox Protestantism to support its false view of the nature of the Church. The 16th century Reformers deemed it possible that the Church of Christ could err so profoundly in matters of  faith and morals that no suitable rulers could be set up by ordinary human means, and those still in  office could no longer be employed with advantage for the salvation of souls. In that case, they held,  God would send men with an extraordinary mission to reform His Church. Such a man, e.g., was  Martin Luther. We hold that such an extraordinary mission is incompatible with the nature and  organization of the Church. She can never be without the Apostolic succession, which is based upon  the ordinary and Apostolic mission and invariably accompanied by the gift of infallibility and the  efficacious assistance of Christ, and therefore the teaching of the Church cannot possibly be distorted to such an extent that its purification would necessitate an extraordinary mission. 

St. Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy. 3rd ed., 1909. pp. 276-77. 

https://books.google.com/books?id=c96E0-IKnb0C&pg=PA276#v=onepage&q&f=false 

The fold of Our Lord is to last till the consummation of the world, in visible unity: the  unity then of external government must remain in it, and nobody has authority to change the form  of administration save Our Lord who established it. 

Rev. Walter Devivier, S.J. Christian Apologetics. volume II. New York: Wagner, 1924. pp. 30-32. https://archive.org/details/christianapologe0000devi_b7q2/page/30/mode/2up 

27. In saying that the true Church is necessarily Apostolic, we mean in the first place that she  must profess the doctrine taught by the Apostles: this is Apostolicity of doctrine. Secondly, she must be able to trace back to the Apostles the unbroken succession of the legitimate heads: this is Apostolicity  of the ministry or of government. 

Apostolicity of doctrine is a logically indispensable consequence of the unity required in the  true Church, and, indeed, its necessity is not denied; but this property is of little use as a mark, as a  positive means of discerning the true Church. It is, therefore, the Apostolicity of the ministry that here  concerns us most. But we have proven (nn. 5-8) that authority in the Church was really confided to the  Apostles. It now remains to show that this authority was to be transmitted without interruption to their  legitimate successors. Apostolicity then is the mark which reason would absolutely require that  the true Church should display, and the absence of which it would deem fatal to her claims, even  if she were to possess the three others. What a judge would say to a man who claimed to be heir at-law to some title or estate, the same can reason fairly say to the Church claiming to be the true  Church of Christ: “Show and prove your pedigree.” The ruling, teaching and sanctifying powers of the true Church must, of course, have been transmitted by the Apostles, who originally  received them from Christ, to successors, and these in turn must have handed them down to  others. The Church that cannot trace her pedigree back to the Apostles through an unbroken  

6.1. The Apostolic College cannot die out www.hoyletutoring.com/research 19

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

succession of pastors, cannot be the true Church; hence the necessity of firmly establishing the  following:  

THESIS.— Jesus Christ wished and disposed that the powers, which He confided to His  Apostles, should be transmitted by them to their successors until the end of time. 

28. First Argument. (1) This thesis flows from the very purpose which the Savior had in view in investing His Apostles with the authority He held from His Father, which was to bring to salvation all  men until the end of time. “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.” (John 20, 21.) “You have not  chosen me, but I have chosen you, and have appointed you, that you should go and should bring forth  fruit, and your fruit should remain.” (John 15, 16) As wise as He was powerful, the divine Master  could not fail to provide the means of attaining the end He had in view. As His Apostles were to  die in the course of time, His will evidently was that their ministry should pass to their legitimate  successors, considered as forming with them a single moral person. And it is in this sense that we  must understand the promise of perennial assistance implied in the words addressed by Christ to His  first Apostles: “Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” (Matt. 28, 20.) 

(2) Jesus Christ assures them that His Church will last as long as the world. But a society  cannot exist without authority, which is its basis. This authority must be perpetuated forever in  the Church; and since it was the Apostles who received the necessary powers, it was to them  alone that the right belonged to transmit these powers to those whom they might choose, and for  the latter in their turn to transmit them to others until the end of the world. 

Very Rev. Joseph Faà di Bruno. Catholic Belief. London: Burns & Oates, 1884. pp. 161-62. https://books.google.vg/books?id=ZbYCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA161 

Apostolicity regards especially the Clergy, hence it is defined: an unbroken succession of  Pastors, who from the time of the Apostles down to the present day, have been rightly ordained,  lawfully sent, and who in succession have taught the same unchanging doctrines. 

By this right ordination, legitimate mission, and pure Apostolic doctrine, the Catholic Church of today is the continuation of the Church founded by Jesus Christ and the Apostles; forms with it but one living identical body, which carries on and transmits the mission which the apostles had from Christ,  and is the only true abiding messenger sent by Christ for the guidance of men to eternal salvation. 

Rev. Sylvester Hunter, S.J., Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, 1898. 2nd ed, vol. 1. p. 285. https://archive.org/details/outlinesofdogmat01hunt/page/284/mode/2up 

[T]he Catholic Church holds that Christ Himself established a Hierarchy, or sacred form of  government, which is essentially necessary to the existence of His Church. 

Rev. Peter Kenrick, Anglican Claims to Apostolical Succession Examined, 1848. pp. 234-35. https://books.google.com/books?id=qnErAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA234 

Supposing, for a moment, that the Anglican clergy have the [episcopal] power, whence have  they received the charge of people whereon to exercise it? It is this combination of power and right,  communicated in an uninterrupted series from the apostles to our days, which constitutes apostolical  

6.1. The Apostolic College cannot die out www.hoyletutoring.com/research 20

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

succession; and hence this combination must have existed at all times since their days, or the idea of  apostolical succession must be abandoned. Absolutely speaking, there might be apostolic ministry  without apostolical succession. Men might have the same power and right to exercise ministerial  functions as the apostles had, because God, who gave it to the apostles, might give to others, by other  means than by communication from the apostles; but unless this power and right were transmitted in  continuous succession from the apostles to our days, there could not be apostolical succession. 

Rev. James J. McGovern, The Manual of the Holy Catholic Church, 1906. pp. 157-158. https://archive.org/details/TheManualOfTheHolyCatholicChurchV1/page/n231 

Q. How does it appear that the Church of Christ is Apostolical? 

A. By the word Apostolical is meant, that the Church of Christ is ruled by the apostles, and the  doctrine of faith was taught by them as they received it from Christ, the powers of priesthood were  exercised by them, and that she must continue to the end of the world in the profession of the same  faith and doctrine, and in a continual uninterrupted succession of priesthood, so that the apostolic  doctrine, priesthood, and mission remain with her forever. That the Church shall always preserve the  apostolical doctrine, we have seen above, when explaining the rule of faith; and that she shall never  want a succession of true pastors, inheriting the same priestly powers and mission which she  received at first from the apostles, is manifest from these considerations: 

First, Because true pastors, properly empowered, and lawfully sent, are a necessary part  of the Church, and instituted by Jesus Christ, “for the perfecting the saints, for the work of the  ministry, for the edification of the body of Christ,” Eph. iv.; consequently, such pastors will never be wanting in her, according to that of the prophet: “Upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, I have  appointed watchmen; all the day and all the night they shall never hold their peace,” Is. lxii. 6. 

Second, because the scripture assures us, that “no man taketh the honour of the priesthood  upon himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was,” Heb. v. 4.; much less can any man  possess the powers of the priesthood, unless they be given to him by those who have the power to give  them. Thus St. Paul writes to Titus, “For this cause I left thee at Crete, that thou shouldst set in order  the things that are wanting, and shouldst ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee,” Tit. i, 5. 

Third, that none who have these priestly powers can lawfully exercise them, unless they be  authorized and commissioned to do so by being lawfully sent. Thus the apostles received their  mission from Christ, who said to them, “As my Father sent me I also send you,” Jo. xx. In like manner  they send others to succeed themselves, with power also to send others after them, as St. Paul and  Barnabus were sent by the chief pastors of the Church at Antioch, and their doing so was declared to be the work of the Holy Ghost, “Then, they, fasting and praying, and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away. So they being sent by the Holy Ghost, went to Selucia,” Acts xiii. 3. 

St. Paul himself sent Titus, as above, that is, authorized and commissioned him to govern the  Church in Crete, and ordain pastors in it under him; and he says, in another place, “How can they  preach unless they be sent?” Rom. x. 15. This, then, is the door by which the true pastors of  Christ’s flock enter, to wit, when lawfully ordained and sent, or commissioned by chief pastors of  the Church. For all who take that office upon themselves, without entering by the door are  declared by Christ himself to be “thieves and robbers,” John x. 1. From all which it is manifest,  that as true pastors are an essential part of the Church of Christ, and will never be wanting in her,  

6.1. The Apostolic College cannot die out www.hoyletutoring.com/research 21

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

therefore, there will be in the Church a continued uninterrupted succession, of the priestly powers and  mission given at the beginning by Jesus Christ himself to his apostles, to the end of time. 

Rev. Gerald Ryan. Principles of Episcopal Jurisdiction, 1939. pp. 13-14. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1f40r6bUOmLl-OgE-jzKPxN_Eocy1iWrV/view 

As to jurisdiction, both the hierarchy of powers and that of persons is necessary, nor was this  hierarchical division ever merely potential, as in the case of Orders before the apostles had begun to  share their power with others, but was actually established as such by Christ personally, and can never  be abolished, for in the apostolic college there was a hierarchy both of powers and of persons. … [J]ust  as there must always be bishops in the Church to provide for its spiritual ministry, so there must also  ever be bishops in the Church, distinct from the Pope, to govern it. 

United States Catholic Magazine. Apostolicity of the Church. December 1844. p. 757. https://books.google.com/books?id=MkA9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA757 

There cannot be the least doubt that Christ our Lord, in establishing the apostolic ministry,  intended it to last without interruption to the end of ages. “Go ye,” said he to his disciples, “and teach  all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching  them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, behold, I am with you all days,  even to the consummation of the world.” (Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.) What does this splendid text signify,  but that the ecclesiastical ministry, which began in the apostles, is to persevere without interruption in  their successors till the end of the world, and that there must be in the church one continued series of  pastors, teaching and baptizing, and governing the faithful in the name and by the authority of Christ,  with a positive assurance of his perpetual protection? In fact, as there will always be upon earth, until  the great day of judgment, men to be taught, to be baptized, to be directed in the ways of salvation,  must there not also be persons constantly empowered to exercise these sacred functions according to  the form originally instituted? This is explained by St. Paul in the following words, which are  themselves a proof of the constant duration of the ecclesiastical ministry: “Some, he (Christ) gave to be apostles, and some prophets, and other evangelists, and others pastors and teachers, for the perfection  of the saints, for the work of the ministry unto the edification of the body of Christ: till we all meet in  the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God.” (Ephes. iv. 11-13) 

Rev. Gerard Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, Volume II: Christ's Church, 1957. pp. 37-38. https://archive.org/details/vannoortvol2christschurch/page/n30/mode/1up 

Proposition 2: It was Christ's will that the sacred ruling power which had begun in the  apostolic college should continue forever. 

This proposition is concerned with the same threeefold power which we have proved to have  been given to the apostles. It asserts that this power was granted by Christ with the following  stipulation: that it be handed on to an endless line of successors. We are not concerned at the moment  with the subordinate co-workers of the apostles. The only point to be proven here is that it was  Christ's will that the apostolic college should continue forever, in such a way that there would  always be in the Church a body of men invested with that threefold power which the apostles  

6.1. The Apostolic College cannot die out www.hoyletutoring.com/research 22

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

enjoyed. This thesis is a dogma of faith, as we know, e.g., from the Council of Trent, Sess. 23, c. 4  (DB 960). 

Proof: 

1. From the indestructibility of the Church. Christ willed that His Church should last until the  end of time, and in an incorrupt state (nos. 19 ff.). Therefore He wanted all those things to last  forever without which the perpetuity of the Church would be impossible. But the Church as He  founded it is completely dependent on the teaching, priestly, and ruling powers of the apostles.  The conclusion is clear. 

Proof of the minor. The Church depends essentially on the teaching, priestly, and ruling powers  of the apostles. For the following factors determine its very existence: that all profess the doctrine  which the apostles taught; that all take part in the same rites which they used to celebrate; and that all  obey their rule. If the preaching, priestly ministration, and government of the apostles were to  stop, the Church would by that very fact immediately vanish. To put it another way, remove the  chains which bind into unity that society which we call the Church, and that unity, that society,  would disperse and come to naught. 

2. From Christ's explicit promise. When our Lord gave the apostles their definitive mission to  teach, sanctify, and rule, He went on to say, in the clearest of terms: “And mark: I am with you at all  times as long as the world will last” (Matt. 28:20). But how could He possibly be forever present to the apostolic college in the world of teaching, sanctifying, and ruling, unless that college itself were to last  forever; unless the apostles were to have a never-ending line of successors in their work as teachers,  priests, and rulers? 

Van Noort, vol. II, pp. 151-52 

https://archive.org/details/vannoortvol2christschurch/page/n87/mode/1up 

II. Christ's Church is Apostolic in Doctrine, Government, and Membership 

1. Apostolicity of doctrine means the Church always retains and teaches the very same  doctrine which it received from the apostles. Doctrine, as the term is used at this point, includes also  the sacraments. 

That Christ unequivocally willed His Church always to preserve the same doctrine taught by  His apostles scarcely needs proving. It was the apostles and no one but the apostles that Christ  commissioned to teach all nations. It was to those very apostles He promised the Holy Spirit so that  they might clearly understand all the truths of salvation (John 16:13). 

2. 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 that Church's structure is apostolicity of  government. For on 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 (Matt. 28:18-20; 16:18- 19; John 21:15-17). This triple power, therefore, necessarily belongs, and can only belong, to those who form one moral person with the apostles: their legitimate successors. 

6.1. The Apostolic College cannot die out www.hoyletutoring.com/research 23

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

Rev. Wilhelm Wilmers. Handbook of the Christian Religion. New York: Benziger, 1891. pp. 99- 100. https://archive.org/details/handbookreligion00wilmuoft/page/n127/mode/2up 

That the apostles, according to the institution of Christ, should have their successors is manifest  from those words in which He promised them, as His legates, His assistance to the end of the world (Matt. xxviii. 20). For, if these words signify that the authority committed to them is to last to the  consummation of the world (42), they, consequently, imply that it is to be handed down to others even  to the end of time, since such authority necessarily supposes a subject in whom it resides. But on  whom has this authority devolved if not on the bishops, who occupy the highest place in the Church's  hierarchy? 

6.2. Visibility, Unity, Mission 

Rev. Gerard Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology: Christ's Church, Vol. II, 1957. pp. 37-38. https://archive.org/details/vannoortvol2christschurch/page/n30/mode/1up 

The Church depends essentially on the teaching, priestly, and ruling powers of the apostles. For the  following factors determine its very existence: that all profess the doctrine which the apostles taught;  that all take part in the same rites which they used to celebrate; and that all obey their rule. If the  preaching, priestly ministration, and government of the apostles were to stop, the Church would  by that very fact immediately vanish. To put it another way, remove the chains which bind into unity that society which we call the Church, and that unity, that society, would disperse and come to naught. 

Rev. Wilhelm Wilmers, Handbook of the Christian Religion, 1891. pp. 370-71. https://archive.org/details/handbookreligion00wilmuoft/page/n399/mode/2up 

4. A bishop is then only a successor of the apostles when he belongs to that body which was  instituted for the government of the Church (52). Now, he cannot belong to that body without being  admitted (cf. Trid. Sess. xxiii. can. 8) or confirmed by its head, the pope; for all members of a body  must be subordinate to the head, and receive their influence from it. 

We have already shown that neither the assemblage of the faithful nor the state can confer  spiritual jurisdiction. A bishop appointed by the people or by the state is an intruder. The same  may be said of one invested with the episcopal dignity by the clergy, or even by a chapter,  contrary to the laws of the Church. All who support a priest, bishop, or diocesan administrator  who has not lawfully received his mission from the pope, and all who hold intercourse with him  in spiritual matters, are, like him whom they support, treated by the Church as schismatics,  because by such action they separate themselves from the Church's unity. 

Rev. John MacHale, The Evidences and Doctrines of the Catholic Church, 1842. pp. 351-52 https://books.google.com/books?id=0e5hAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA351 

Had Christ foreseen the failure of his Church, we are to presume that, in his wisdom, he would  have supplied us with instructions to repair it. His silence on so interesting a concern is a proof that the scruples entertained by some on the score of its corruption, are vain; and that fears for its stability are  imaginary. … If it, therefore, wanted repairs, we should, even according to some Protestants, wait until  

6.2. Visibility, Unity, Mission www.hoyletutoring.com/research 24

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

he himself would repair it; and, in such circumstances, imitate the forlorn children of Israel, by putting  up fervent prayers for the restoration of our religion, rather than provoke the divine vengeance by a  rash and unauthorized usurpation of its priesthood. 

Rev. Walter Devivier, S.J. Christian Apologetics, volume II, 1924. p. 31. 

https://archive.org/details/christianapologe0000devi_b7q2/page/30/mode/2up 

Apostolicity of doctrine is a logically indispensable consequence of the unity required in the  true Church, and, indeed, its necessity is not denied; but this property is of little use as a mark, as a  positive means of discerning the true Church. It is, therefore, the Apostolicity of the ministry that here  concerns us most. 

Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 372-74 

https://books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA372  

454. Our task, lest we be forced to respond to every aberrant idea, is to first set forth the true  concept of the visibility of the Church, and then we will try to fortify it with strong arguments; thus all  errors against it will collapse as of their own weight. And from the beginning we emphasize, when we  speak of the Church's visibility, we do not ask whether it is visible materially, as they say, as regards  the members by which it is composed, the rites by which they are joined together, the ministry by which they are governed, etc. For it is clear that all these things must be visible whenever it regards a congregation of men. What also concerns this question is this: whether the Church be visible also  formally, that is, as the true church, just as the church was instituted by Christ – the church, as they say, of the promises – whether it can with certainty be distinguished from other congregations, which are  not that true Church of Christ. 

455. But since the true Church of Christ consists of soul and body, if the body alone is seen, and not in any way the soul, then we do not properly see the true Church of Christ, which certainly is not a  dead body. For to the true Church of Christ, the same as to any being, belong certain properties; unless these properties were visible in some way, one could not say that the Church is visible as the true  

Church of Christ. But here a difficulty arises: how, they say, can interior faith, sanctifying grace, and  the other gifts which constitute the soul of the Church, be seen? How can some properties, e.g. unity,  sanctity, be seen as to all their parts? To resolve this difficulty, one must take note that something can  be visible either per se, or by something else (they say, per accidens), in which and by which it is  manifested, as in a man the body is visible per se, but the rational soul that informs it, although not  visible per se, yet is manifested by means of external signs, e.g. by speaking. Unless a man be visible  as a rational animal, he is not formally visible, that is, as a man. Therefore the Church is visible per se as to the body; as to the soul it is visible by signs, by which it manifests itself; as to its properties it is  visible partly per se, partly by something else; and consequently it is visible formally, that is, as the  true Church of Christ. Indeed, internal faith, internal justice or sanctity, etc. which is as the soul  informing the Church's body, do not appear, nor are they manifest per se; but neither does the soul of a  man appear of itself. Nevertheless, as the soul itself shines forth, so to speak, by means of the body  which it informs and vivifies, by which it acts, such that a true man can be seen; likewise the soul of  the Church, informing, moving, vivifying the body, is manifested by the body, so as to make visible the true Church of Christ. Thus the visibility of the Church is “a certain manifestation of the true Church  of Christ,” which makes this determination with a certain judgment: “this is the true Church of Christ.” 

6.2. Visibility, Unity, Mission www.hoyletutoring.com/research 25

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

456. This sets forth sufficiently the concept of visibility, which we claim for the Church. We  should add only that this same visibility, in Catholic doctrine, pertains to the very essence of the  Church, and thus cannot be absent at any time. For just as if the soul, or the body, or the union  between body and soul were absent, then there would not be a man, to whose essence all these things  belong; likewise, if the Church failed as to visibility, the Church itself would fail. But we do not on  that account assert here the perpetual indefectibility of the Church, which will be proved below in its  own place; but we say that the Church remains visible for as long as it lasts. 

Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 379-80 

https://books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA379 

464. Therefore, in order to summarize all this in a few words, we say: “The people of the  Church are conceived by the preaching and hearing of the faith, which clearly is something sensible;  they are born by baptism, which is a most visible sign; they are nourished by the sacraments, which  again are sensible signs of interior grace; just as their pastors are adopted by certain and visible  signs, so being adopted they govern by external and open laws: thus the Church by her very  nature is a congregation of visible men, visibly entering it, and by many visible signs dwelling  within it under pastors visibly adopted. Thus, if Christ had wished to institute a visible church, as  Catholics say he truly did and Protestants deny, let them say what more he ought to have provided. For if, as in fact is true, one cannot conceive how he could more clearly have made her visible, either one  must say that to make a visible church is impossible even to God Himself, which is absurd, or one must confess that the true church is visible. Again: From what has been said, one cannot deny that many  elements of the Church are visible; indeed, these certainly pertain to the essence of the Church, because (1) Christ did not institute the Church except by instituting these things, and (2) they are absolutely  necessary to the proper end of the Church. Therefore it is impossible to conceive a true Church of  Christ that would be invisible; for thus some essential element would be missing, without which the  Church herself could not exist. – Further, the elements of the Church that are invisible per se, are  manifested by something else, as we said; nor can that manifestation be doubtful for the whole  congregation. For it could be that the profession of faith in one or another member is a lie, as likewise  the external signs of holiness in one or another could be hypocrisy; but besides the special providence  by which the Church is governed, the moral law itself, which governs the human race, rules out  hypocrisy and dishonesty in the whole multitude. 

Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 386-89 

https://books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA386 

473. Now suppose, as we shall soon prove, that the purpose for which Christ instituted the  Church was, in the Church and by means of the Church, to make perennial his visible mission on earth,  and his visible magisterium. Thus as Christ's magisterium, government, and ministry of sanctification  perdure in the Church teaching and governing, so the faithful by adhering to its doctrine, obeying it,  receiving the means of sanctification from it, find in the Church the safe way of salvation. … 

479. Consequently, as we have said (n. 388.), true christianity differs not from the Church,  unless as the abstract from the concrete; in very truth they are one and the same thing. For just as there  could not be a true Church of Christ without the doctrine and institutions of Christ, so neither can true  

6.2. Visibility, Unity, Mission www.hoyletutoring.com/research 26

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

christianity flourish outside the genuine Church of Christ. Thus, what the rationalists of our age  imagine for themselves – christianity separated from the Church of Christ, and therefore freed from the  obligations she is owed – must be regarded as a pure chimera. For, as we said above, our Redeemer  willed that “his religion should so inhere in the society he instituted, that it remain thoroughly  connected and, so to speak, concrete with it, and that there should be no true Christian religion outside  of it.” 

480. Indeed this proof is of the greatest importance. For if, in order to institute and propagate  his religion Christ immediately undertook the founding of the Church, and deposited in her the doctrine and institutions that he revealed, for her to guard and to disseminate in perpetuity, then the Christian  revelation could never, not even for one instant, be left as it were to itself; but what Christ first held as in his hands, passed thence to the Apostles, and later from the hands of the Apostles passed into the  hands of their successors. Consequently, just as from the beginning the doctrine and religion of Christ  was to be sought from Christ himself; just as after the ascension of Christ into heaven it was to be  sought from the Apostles; likewise after the times of the Apostles until the consummation of the  world it is to be sought from the Church, that is, from her authentic magisterium, in which  Christ's own magisterium still perseveres and flourishes. 

Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 389-93 

https://books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA389  

Prop. XX. The end that Christ proposed to Himself in instituting the Church, was to establish  forever his visible mission on earth, in the Church and by means of the Church; and thus to promote  the glory of God by obtaining the eternal salvation of men. Thus the Church, in view of its end, is a  religious, spiritual, and supernatural society; indeed, it is the christian religion itself in the concrete,  clearly different from any other society. 

482. I. We consider the the mission of Christ in general. Indeed – 1) Christ communicated his  very own mission to the Apostles. For we read: “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you” (John xx. 21); and “Sanctify them in truth; Thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have  sent them into the world” (John xvii. 17-18); and “You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go, and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain”  (John xv. 16). – 2) In order to accomplish this mission, Christ imparted His own power to the  Apostles. For it says: “ All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going THEREFORE,  teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy  Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am  with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” (Matt. 28:18-20) Thus also, after those  words “as he sent” etc., Christ subjoins: “Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive,  etc.” (John xx.) and having bestowed the mission to preach the Gospel, he adds: “he who believeth not,  shall be condemned,” (Mark xvi. 15) as it says: “he who heareth you, heareth me; and he who despiseth you, despiseth me” (Luke x. 16). – 3) This mission and power did not belong to the Apostles alone, but  was to be continued in their successors. For – a) that mission and power, as is clear from the cited  testimonies, was imparted to the Apostles for the good of the whole world, of all peoples, for all time;  and indeed all must be saved by Christ, and by the means instituted by Him: but the Apostles could not  by themselves spread abroad to all peoples in all times the mission they had received – b) From the text of Matthew in particular (chap. 18), it is clear that Christ promised to be with the Apostles as men who  

6.2. Visibility, Unity, Mission www.hoyletutoring.com/research 27

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

teach and baptize until the end of the world. But this cannot be understood only of the persons of the  Apostles – c) Thus, as after the ascension of Christ into heaven the Apostles were the church  teaching, governing, and administrating (this is also clear from the Acts of the Apostles and from  the Letters of Peter and Paul), and they visibly caried out the ministry of Christ on earth; in the  same way, the Bishops succeed to the Apostles until the end of the world, in order to visibly  perform the ministry of Christ, and for the mission of Christ to continue in them. 

483. II. Let us consider the individual duties of the mission of Christ. For – 1) the duty of his  mission was to teach to men the true and safe way of salvation: for of this it is said: “Jesus began to do  and to teach;” and he said of Himself that he came “to preach the Gospel to the poor,” that he was “the  way and the truth,” etc. And he entrusted the same duty to the Apostles, to whom He said “going  therefore, teach all nations” – through their successors this duty must endure “until the end of  the world” – this duty is the same as authentic magisterium, as is clear from this: “who believeth  and is baptized … shall be saved; but he who believeth not, shall be condemned.” Thus 

2) The duty of the mission of Christ was to free men from the bonds of sins and to sanctify  them; thus St. John the Baptism says of Him: “Behold the Lamb of God; behold Him who takes away  the sin of the world;” Christ Himself said to the paralytic and to Magdalene “your sins are forgiven;” of Himself he declared that He had come “to save that which was lost.” And it is evident that Christ  imposed the same duty upon the Apostles, in whom He founded the Church. For He spoke thus to the  Apostles: “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them;  and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them;  and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” (John xx. 21-23) And: “Amen I say to you,  whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose  upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Matt. xviii. 18) 

3) The duty of Christ's mission certainly was, as long as He was on earth, to personally  govern the Church founded by Him. Thus he entrusted the same office to the Apostles, in whom  He founded the Church. Thus He enjoins upon Peter: “Feed my sheep, feed my lambs.” But since  the rest of the Apostles needed to participate in the same duty, it is said to them: “ Feed the flock of  God which is among you” (I Peter v. 2); as Paul says: “Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God.” (Acts xx. 28) And lest  anyone think that he could reject the authority of such pastors with impunity, Christ declared: “Amen,  amen I say to you, he that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me; and he that receiveth me,  receiveth him that sent me;” (John xiii. 20) and said that one who resists the judgment of the Church  should be regarded as the heathen and publican: “And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee  as the heathen and publican.” (Matt. xviii. 17) 

484. III. From this it is clear that the purpose of the Church instituted by Christ is the  continuation of the mission of Christ Himself; from which, as we have noted, it is rightly inferred  that this purpose is the sanctification of men on earth and their eternal salvation in heaven. But  this needs to be proved directly. Indeed – 1) The first means of sanctification and salvation is faith,  which is called “the beginning, root, and foundation of all justice,” and without which, according to the  Apostle, “it is impossible to please God.” (Heb. xi. 6) And indeed, by his own reasoning, following  Isaias (ch. 53): “Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ.” (Rom. x. 17) And  from whom shall we hear the word of Christ? The same Apostle says just before: “How shall they  believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher? And how  shall they preach unless they be sent?” (v. 14-15) And what men are sent to preach, unless those to  whom Christ said “going, teach”? Thus the Apostle adds, speaking of them: “Yes, verily, their sound  

6.2. Visibility, Unity, Mission www.hoyletutoring.com/research 28

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

hath gone forth into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the whole world.” (v. 18) 2) The chief means of imparting sanctity and promoting salvation are the sacraments. But each and all of the sacraments Christ entrusted only to His Church. And most certainly he said  only to the Apostles and to their successors: “Going therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them, etc.” (Matt. xviii. 19); and to them He said: “Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins you forgive, they are  forgiven,” etc.; and to the same men he said: “Do this in memory of me;” (Luke xxii. 19) and other  things that are customarily explained regarding each sacrament. Consequently, the Apostle declared in  general: “Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God.” (I. Cor. iv. 1) 

3) This charge was given to Peter: “feed my sheep; feed my lambs;” (John xxi. 15-16) as to the  others it was said, “feed the flock which is among you.” Now indeed the word “feed” means nothing more than to provide all the spiritual means by which eternal salvation can be attained: for the  government of the Church is instituted for this purpose. Certainly nobody can enter in to eternal  life, unless the entry into the kingdom of heaven is opened to him: but it was said to Peter: “And to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven;” (Matt. xvi. 19) therefore only by Peter, the foundation  of the Church, and therefore by the Church itself, can the entry into eternal life lie open. – From this it  follows that the work of redemption, as to the sufficiency and payment of the price, was accomplished by Christ, according to the Apostle: “by one oblation [Christ] has perfected forever;” (Heb. x. 14) but  as to the application, it was begun by Christ, but by the Church it is to be completed by means of  those whom Christ instituted “for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of  the Son of God … unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ.” (Eph. iv. 12-13) 

Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 489-91 

https://books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA489 

The unity in general, which we are discussing, consists in this: that the Church is not many but one, and it is that same one that Christ founded and instituted. Thus a distinction is typically made between  simultaneous and successive unity. For the Church is called one – 1) insofar as at no time after her  institution by Christ would there be two or more Churches of Christ at the same time: which is  simultaneous unity – 2) insofar as the one true Church that existed, would continue the same and self consistent, not being changed into another: which is successive unity. – Although the unity of the  Church includes all these things, yet given that successive unity is easily reduced to Apostolicity and  indefectibility, we now properly and directly will discuss simultaneous unity. 

631. In order that the genuine nature of this unity, which is proper to the Church, may be well  understood, we must keep in mind that the Church is “the congregation of the faithful” or “the society  of men who are bound together by the profession of the same faith, and by subjection to  legitimate Pastors;” thus the property of unity must be such as is required for a society to be called  one; and one society of the faithful. Here are usually distinguished (1) unity of faith, which exhibits  the closest concord in faith, that is, the agreement of all the faithful of Christ in professing the  true faith; and (2) unity of government, without which no society can be one. And all other kinds  of unity, indicated by various people, are reduced to this twofold unity. Thus the unity which is  called of communion or of charity, properly regards the union of members amongst themselves,  and means the mutual cooperation of all the members towards the same end by the same means  under the direction of one and the same government: from which union it results that, feeling the  

6.2. Visibility, Unity, Mission www.hoyletutoring.com/research 29

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

same for each other, they maintain unity by the bond of peace. But anyone can see that the unity  of faith and government in the Church necessarily includes this unity of communion. Likewise  it's customary to assign that unity which they call ritual, by which all in the Church keep the  same rites, which are of divine institution: thus the rite of initiation, namely baptism, is one and the  same for all; the sharing in the same Sacraments is common; there is one sacrifice for all, which, as it is the chief act of religion, belongs most properly to the Church of Christ, which is the Christian religious society. But anyone can also see, that this ritual unity cannot be lacking, where unity of faith and  government are present. Thus it is sufficient to speak of this twofold unity. 

632. But what is the meaning of unity of faith; for the Innovators themselves, unless they are  willing to become practically rationalists, do not shrink from saying that the Church is somehow one in  faith? For faith can be called one for various reasons: – 1) as to the formal object, also called the  motive, which is one, namely the authority of God revealing – 2) as to the primary object, which is God Himself – 3) as to the principle or habit, which if it be one, extends equally to all the objects that are  believed, etc. But, these things being presupposed or left aside, the unity of faith that we have in  view, consists of this: that “the faithful dispersed throughout the world believe (profess to believe) all the same articles, which the Church proposes to be believed.” Indeed all and the same articles, as here: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the  same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in  the same judgment.” (I Cor. i. 10) – Which the Church proposes to be believed, according to this: “By  whom [Jesus Christ] we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith, in all nations,  for his name;” (Rom. i. 5) that is, we received the apostolate to announce the faith, and by our apostolic authority to require obedience to this faith in all nations for His name, that because of His authority and name they may obey the faith. 

633. From this it is clear 1) the unity of faith does not only mean the fact, that all and the  same truths are believed everywhere by all; but also, as they say, the right, or the principle by  which that fact is perpetually produced and conserved. This principle is the magisterium  governing the Church, which is indeed infallible by the assistance of the Holy Ghost, in defining the  truths of the faith. The charism of infallibility in this magisterium will be explained below; for this  matter it suffices to say that unity of faith includes the consensus of all in those same truths, by the  adherence of all to the same principle determining the consent, which is the apostolic  magisterium. 

Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 508-17 

https://books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA508 

Prop. XXVIII. 1. The Church is also one by unity of government, by which all of the faithful  throughout the world are made subject to one supreme authority. Thus any schism whatsoever, as the  name itself indicates, separates from true unity – 2. nor is it permissible for any reason to begin a  schism, or to remain in it. 

… 

661. IV. [It is proved] from the fathers, whose testimony, for the sake of brevity, we will reduce  to a a few classes. And – 1) they prove it by that testimony, by which they place the unity of  government in the very definition of the Church. Thus, e.g. St. Cyprian (ep. 69. to Florent. Pupianum)  after saying that the Church is “the people united to the priest, and the flock adhering to its pastor;” he  adds, the Bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the Bishop; he who is not with the Bishop, is not  

6.2. Visibility, Unity, Mission www.hoyletutoring.com/research 30

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

in the Church. They flatter themselves in vain, who, not having peace with the priests of God, sneak up and believe that with some they are secretly communicating: “since,” he adds, “the Church which is  Catholic is one, is not split, nor divided, but by all means connected, and united by the glue of the  priests who adhere to it.” 

… 

663. Proof of the 2nd part. I. For no reason is it ever allowed to begin a schism or to remain in  it, if the necessity of maintaining external unity is absolute, and allows no exceptions. But such is its  necessity. Therefore [the conclusion follows]. 

Proof of the minor. – 1) Scripture openly excludes every possible exception. This is obvious  when one recalls the arguments just given: for since the Church is The Body of Christ, the Temple or  House of God, the Kingdom of Christ, the Sheepfold of Christ; if at any time it were permitted to tear  apart the unity of the Church, it would be permitted to tear apart the body of Christ, the house of God,  the Kingdom of Christ, the sheepfold of Christ; that is, it would be permissible to not have Christ as  Head, to live outside the house and Kingdom of Christ, to no have Christ as Pastor. But obviously such things can never be permissible, as we can never licitly be deprived of the life that Christ has granted to us. Therefore [the conclusion follows]. 

2) If the necessity of maintaining the unity of the Church were not absolute, it would follow  according to the principles held by our adversaries that there is no such precept regarding external  government, which they themselves deny. Indeed, according to them, it would be permissible to tear  apart that unity for reasons of corruption, heresy, etc. But in that case, by whom would the cause for  separation be established? If by the authority constituted by Christ in the Church, the schism of its  adversaries would certainly be illicit, since the Church has always opposed it; and if without the  consent of that authority, anyone could establish a just cause for separation by his own judgment, then  the government of the Church would be absolutely destroyed. For what authority is that, which the  subjects can licitly reject by their own judgment? 

3) The Fathers teach that it is equally illicit to be separated from the Church by schism, as by  heresy. … 

4) The Fathers teach that the external unity of the Church is equally necessary as is charity.  Thus, as nothing avails without charity, likewise nothing avails for those who voluntarily dwell outside  the Church's unity. … 

664. II. To further press the argument, and at the same time to exclude the main causes of  separation proposed by our adversaries, it is best to make this argument: to begin a schism is never  allowed, if there could never be a just cause for breaking unity. But so it is. Therefore [the conclusion  follows]. 

Proof of the minor. 1) The Fathers generally deny any cause for such a thing. … 2) Could the corrupt morals of Catholics be called a just cause [for schism]? But, leaving the  rest aside, this supposes that the Church is composed of only the just, which we refuted above. … 3) Could new rites instituted by the Church be called a just cause for schism? “In those things,” says St. Augustine (ep. 85. ad Casul.), “on which the divine Scripture establishes nothing certain, the  custom of the people of God, or the institutions of the elders are to be held as law. If we were willing  to debate such things, and to find fault with some based on the customs of others, an unending strife  would arise, in which the labor of speaking with certain documents [?] would arrive at no truth, and it  is to be feared that the serenity of charity would be overshadowed by a storm of contention.” … 4) Could heresies be called a just cause for schism? But – a) the Church cannot fail in faith – b) The unity of faith, as we saw in the previous proposition, depends on the unity of government – c) If,  

6.2. Visibility, Unity, Mission www.hoyletutoring.com/research 31

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

by an impossible hypothesis, the Church were to be stained with heresy, by that very fact it would cease to be the true Church of Christ; and those who would break away, would constitute it; thus the true  Church of Christ would always remain one. 

Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 557-62 

https://books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA557  

718. Thus the apostolic Church, according to this general agreement, is that which permanently possesses all that by divine institution pertains to her essence, properties, and endowments. This  Church is permanently a visible society, one in faith, in communion, in government; is holy by a  holiness both active and passive that is indeed excellent and conspicuous, etc. Thus, as Perrone among  others rightly notes, apostolicity thus understood is not anything different from the parts and the  properties of the Church taken together, but is the continuous and never-failing existence of all of them  in combination. 

719. But now we ask, what is the proper concept of apostolicity, which is distinct from unity  and from the other parts and properties of the Church? In what is it found? The Church is called  apostolic for a threefold reason: – 1) by origin, insofar as she was founded by the Apostles – 2) by  doctrine, or faith, insofar as she retains that faith, which the Apostles preached – 3) by succession or  mission, insofar as she embraces in her bosom those who have legitimately descended from the  Apostles in hierarchical order. “[The true Church is, also, to be known] from her origin, which she  derives under the law of grace, from the Apostles; for her doctrines are neither novel nor of recent  origin, but were delivered, of old, by the Apostles, and disseminated throughout the world. … The Holy Ghost, who presides over the Church, governs her by no other than Apostolic  

men; and this Spirit, first imparted to the Apostles, has, by the infinite goodness of God, always  continued in the Church.” 

… 3) Thus, all apostolicity is contained in apostolicity of succession. 

721. Indeed, the name itself indicates this. For the name Apostles, from which comes  Apostolicity, is derived from the Greek words απο and στολον, which is the same thing as sent with  commands: but it refers to apostolicity, or divine mission in matters of religion, that is, the Christian  

Religion; for we do not call those Apostles, who were divinely sent before Christ. Thus Apostolicity is  that legitimate mission entrusted by God to certain men to propagate, teach, and govern the Church in a ministerial capacity. But since the Apostles were mortals, and received a perpetual mision, it is  necessary that others be substituted, who being made the heirs and successors of the deceased, take up  and possess the mission, to be transmited again to successors in an uninterrupted series, until the  consummation of the world. Therefore the Apostolic Church is that which the first legates of Christ,  namely the Apostles, founded and governed, and even now hold and govern by their legitimate  successors. From this it is evident, that the true concept of apostolic mission and succession must be  explained, that we may arrive at the genuine idea of Apostolicity. 

722. Now we ask, what is the apostolic succession? It can be described: “public,  legitimate, perennial or never interrupted substitution of persons in the place of the Apostles to  rule and to shepherd the Church.” It says – 1) substitution, to signify that the successors of the  Apostles are not their vicars; but they exercise that very office which the Apostles, insofar as they were  rulers and administrators, exercised – 2) It says public; for as it treats of the authority to rule an  external and public society, it must be verified by determinate criteria known to all, that these  men and not others have truly succeeded to the apostolic office – 3) It says legitimate, evidently on  

6.2. Visibility, Unity, Mission www.hoyletutoring.com/research 32

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

the part of him who gives the power, and of him who receives it, and by the way in which the power is  conferred, that the transmission clearly fulfills the legal standard – 4) It says perennial or not  interrupted, of course both materially, insofar as persons are never entirely lacking who are  continually substituted for the Apostles, and formally, insofar as these very substituted persons  are empowered with the authority derived from the Apostles, receiving it from him who now  actually possesses it and is able to communicate it. 

723. To understand this more fully, we must remember that in the successors of the Apostles  can be distinguished (1) ordination or consecration, and (2) vocation or mission; and thus a twofold  power, of order and of jurisdiction. It is not necessary here to discuss ordination in detail, for – 1) what  pertains to it is clear, in part from what was said about the distinction in the divine law between clerics  and laics, and also chiefly from what is said in the treatise on Orders – 2) Granted that Apostolic  succession necessarily includes ordination, yet in ecclesiastical terminology neither solely nor chiefly  does it mean a succession of men, who trace back to the apostles by a linked transmission of the  episcopal character; but chiefly it means a succession of men, who by a linked transmission of  authority to teach and shepherd the faithful trace back to the Apostles – 3) From the legitimacy of  vocation or mission recognized by the other conditions, the validity of ordination is legitimately  inferred (if we speak of the [universal] Church and of her certain Head, not indeed of any one  individual); for if the Church can never lack the apostolic succession at any time, neither can she  lack any condition or element that it necessarily requires. 

724. But indeed as to mission, that is, the bestowal of actual and unhindered jurisdiction in the  mystical body of Christ, which is the Church, we must note – 1) that this power, unlike the power of  order, can be lost; and therefore acts of this power exercised illegitimately are not only illicit but also  invalid; while, on the other hand, acts of the power of order exercised illegitimately are illicit, but valid. Suppose, for example, a heretical or schismatic Bishop (we speak of one who truly received Episcopal  consecration) consecrates another man a Bishop; he would be consecrated validly, and would have the  power of order, not indeed of jurisdiction; for otherwise he would receive it from a man who does not  have it, which clearly is nonsensical. 

… 

725. From these things there follows a corollary of greatest importance, namely that  communion with the center of unity suffices to make known apostolicity; for if this were lacking  elsewhere in some congregation that is called christian, it would be supplied, as we have said, or  obtained, by that very adherence to the center of unity, in which is the fullness of apostolic authority.  Therefore, in order to summarize in a few words what we have explained thus far, we say that the  aforesaid adherence to the center of unity is truly the chief point in this entire controversy about the  apostolicity of the Church. For the Church is called apostolic by origin, doctrine, and succession; given apostolicity of succession, apostolicity of origin and doctrine are rightly inferred; apostolicity of  succession includes ordination or consecration, and mission; if legitimate mission is proved, legitimate  ordination is rightly presumed or inferred; that legitimate mission is obtained or supplied by adherence  to the center of unity. Thus if that adherence is proved, by that very fact adequate apostolicity is  demonstrated. 

6.2. Visibility, Unity, Mission www.hoyletutoring.com/research 33

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 562-63 

https://books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA562  

727. The errors of innovators on the matter of Apostolicity can be reduced to these – 1) In  words they concede the apostolicity of doctrine, but they pervert its true concept: the errors are the  same as those we listed against the unity of faith – 2) As to apostolicity of succession, those errors  chiefly recur, which we refuted by alleging the distinction in the divine law between laymen and  clerics, and excluding the democratic form of government from the Church – 3) Those who belong to  the party that they call High Church, are chiefly in error about the necessity of communion with the  center of unity – 4) Thus the most characteristic error in this matter is extraordinary mission,  which they have crafted in order to cover up the lack of apostolicity of mission and of origin in  their sects. For when, they say, the state of the Church is such that either nobody can be  appointed by an ordinary vocation to carry out the ecclesiastical functions; or that those who are  appointed, are so corrupt in faith and morals that their amendment cannot be hoped for; when  an ordinary vocation of better men from elsewhere is impossible; then, they say, nothing forbids  those who have no ordinary vocation to take up apostolic functions by an extraordinary vocation: indeed, they add, in such a state of the Church anyone is bound in conscience, by the force of the  common vocation of all Christians, to carry out apostolic duties insofar as he is able. Indeed, the  Innovators assert that this took place in Luther and Calvin, who moreover were inspired by a hidden  divine movement, and thus by an extraordinary vocation, to undertake the reformation of the Church. 

Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 565-66 

https://books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA565 

732. III. As to succession – 1) The Church cannot be ruled and governed, except by that  authority which Christ instituted: this is evident, because Christ is the author of the Church, and  because the power to govern the Church is supernatural, and therefore it cannot come from any source  but from God. But Christ willed that the Church be governed by apostolic authority to endure forever  in their successors. Therefore the Church must always be Apostolic in succession, or government. –  Proof of the minor – a) Christ bestowed upon the Apostles the power to rule the Church, and willed that it be transmitted to their successors (n. 482-84.; 524.) – b) The Apostles preached this power which  they had received from Christ. For in order to commend themselves to the faithful, they often  reminded them of that distinctive power to rule and to teach, which they had received from Christ.  Thus (II. Cor. V. 20.): “For Christ therefore we are ambassadors, God as it were exhorting by us;” (I.  Cor. IV. 1.): “Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the  mysteries of God;” (I. Thess. II. 13.): “We also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when  you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as  it is indeed) the word of God.” Indeed, fortified by this persuasion, they demand that the faithful  acknowledge and give full obedience to this vicarious power of theirs; thus (II. Cor. II. 9.): “For to this  end also did I write, that I may know the experiment of you, whether you be obedient in all things;” (II. Thess. III. 14.): “If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and do not keep company with him” – c) The Apostles excercised this same power; they communicated it to others to be  communicated by them to others. 

2) Christ willed unity of faith, which consists in this: that the faithful dispersed throughout the  world believe all those truths that the Apostles preached, and which their successors propose to be  

6.2. Visibility, Unity, Mission www.hoyletutoring.com/research 34

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

believed (nn. 650. seqq.). But clearly such unity cannot be had without the apostolic succession, since  it is the principle of unity of faith. 

733. Proof of the 2nd part. I. From Scripture. Thus – 1) the hypothesis of an extraordinary  mission must be rejected, if by the institution of Christ the Apostolic succession can never fail  [deficere]. But thus it is. For – a) Christ the Lord sent the Apostles into the whole world; to teach all  peoples; and to these teachers he made the promise to be with them all days; until the consummation of the world. But these things would be false if the Apostolic succession could defect at any time – b)  Christ, according to the Apostle (Ephes. IV.) gave apostles, pastors and doctors “for the perfecting of  the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, until we all meet into the  unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age  of the fullness of Christ.” By which words it is announced that the ordinary and mediate apostolic  mission shall endure until the mystical body of Christ is fully built; thus there can never be pastors and  doctors who, by an extraordinary mission, would make up for the failure of those who came first. 

Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 572-75 

https://books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA572 

740. Thus, in order to adequately and explicitly state the concept of indefectibility, which  belongs to the Church, we say that it consists “in her perpetual continuation until the end of the  world in that internal and external constitution, in the possession of those properties and  endowments, in which she was first instituted by Christ.” From this description it is clear – 1) The  indefectibility of the Church pertains to her constitutive essentials (soul and body, whatever is in the  nature of such a visible society: magisterium, ministry, government); and to her properties (unity,  sanctity, etc.); and finally to her other endowments and prerogatives (infallibility etc.) – 2) This kind of  indefectibility applies to all times of the Church's existence, so that at no time could she lack any one  of her constitutive parts, or any of her properties or endowments. – 3) This existence of the Church is to last until the end of the world; thus the indefectibility of which we speak includes perpetuity. – 4)  Nevertheless, this indefectibility should not be confused with Apostolicity, taken in its generally  accepted sense, according to which the Church of whatever age must be the same as the Church  founded by the Apostles; for Apostolicity in this sense says that the Church, as long as it shall last,  must be the same as the Church founded by the Apostles. But indefectibility says that the Church will  last until the end of the world with this same identity. 

…  

742. But it should be noted, that indefectibility is attributed to the universal Church, and not to  each of its parts, that is, to particular Churches; for the promises of Christ were not made to the Church  as existing in this or that nation, but to the universal Church. But even if particular Churches fail, the  Church itself will always remain unfailing and indefectible: indeed, her catholicity itself will remain,  either because the failures of particular Churches are not simultaneous, or because when one Church  fails, new Churches are founded elsewhere. 

743. All innovators err against the true indefectibility of the Church, but not all to the same  degree. For – … 3) Some reduce indefectibility to visibility: either they make it to mean that there will  always be some men who profess the true faith; or they say that the Church shall never entirely lack the essentials of the faith (as they call them); or they mix all these things together. 

4) Many, on the other hand, teach that the invisible Church cannot fail, but for the visible Church it is otherwise. Thus Bellarmine says, “many of our party waste their time when they prove  

6.2. Visibility, Unity, Mission www.hoyletutoring.com/research 35

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

that the Church cannot entirely defect, for Calvin and the other heretics admit that; but they say it must  be understood of the invisible Church.” … Thus we omit the opinions of those who, although they do  assert the indefectibility of the Church visible and invisible; yet they believe that it can defect as to one  or another thing, such as faith, unity of government, etc. 

744. As we have hinted, not only do all of these more or less assert the defectibility of the  Church, but they also affirm that she in fact has defected, by that same reasoning by which they deny  the visibility of the Church: that is to say, in this way they attempt to justify their own defection from  the Church. 

…  

3) Arguments are not lacking which even more directly demonstrate the perpetuity of  those properties and prerogatives which, according to our adversaries, are most capable of  defecting and at times have defected in the Church: the chief of these is the Apostolic succession,  and the external ministry of doctors, upon which unity and the rest depends. Now, if just this one  property is shown to be indefectible, it will cut off every escape for our adversaries, to try to justify  their own defection by asserting the defectibility of the Church. 

Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 576-78, 580 

https://books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA576 

Prop. XXXII. Christ so instituted the Church, that it should be the last economy of salvation, not only  in regard to essentials, but also in regard to state, as they say, lasting endlessly and perpetually: and  consequently it enjoys indefectibility, by the force of which it shall continue unto the end of the  world in that internal and external constitution, and with those same properties and endowments,  with which it began to exist. 

…  

748. [This is proved] II. From the New Testament. … 2) From the perpetuity and  indefectibility of the Apostolic office [munus], on which the other things depend in the Church,  and which, if it alone stands, the dispute with the innovators is finished. For indeed (Matth. 28.)  Christ sent the Apostles to teach and baptize, and also promised that he would be with them, insofar as  they teach and baptize, until the end of the world. And (John XIV. 16.) Christ the Lord said: “And I  will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever.” And  (Eph. iv.) Paul teaches that Christ gave the Apostles to be shepherds and teachers “for the perfecting of  the saints;” “until we all meet into the unity of faith;” “unto a perfect man.” We have often explained  this argument already. 

749. III. If we consult the places cited from the Old and New Testaments, we rightly ask: how  could all that is said of the Church in these places be true, if the Church, even for a time, could lose one or another of its properties and endowments? For – 1) suppose that unity of faith and government were  to fail, so that the Church, divided into two or more parts, would no longer be one: it is obvious that of  the Church thus divided one could no longer affirm that she is not scattered, stands forever, breaks  down and consumes all other kingdoms; but rather she would be cut apart, broken down and consumed: it is clear that the enemy would have prevailed over her, have driven her out, and that she would have  been deserted by Christ. 

2) Nor can it be said that the predictions and promises of the Church's perpetual indefectibility  were conditional, that is, provided she would remain faithful. For – a) these promises were not only  made by Christ to the Church, but to Christ Himself, whose merits have obtained the reward of an  

6.2. Visibility, Unity, Mission www.hoyletutoring.com/research 36

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

everlasting kingdom; thus to him, who purchased the Church by His blood, it was said: “ask of me, and I will give you the nations as thy inheritance.” Is there any condition on the part of Christ, or if there  were any, could He fail on His part? – b) the promises made to the Church do not express any  condition; indeed, as they were made to the universal Church, they exclude any conditions of  faithfulness on the part of the Church herself, for in that case, such promises would have this sense: the  Church will not err, if she does not turn aside from the truth; she will give pure doctrine, if she does not corrupt it; etc.: which are ridiculous indeed. 

…  

751. V. [Indefectibility is proved] By theological reason. For – 1) The Church was instituted  by Christ, in order to continue His mission on earth for the sanctification and salvation of souls.  Therefore she must endure, so long as there are men to be saved by Christ, that is, until the end  of ages; so that to all and forever Christ should be the way, the truth, and the life. But unless the  Church continued truly indefectible, she could not work toward her end and continue her mission. For this requires that men be able to come to her in order to obtain salvation by her; thus it is  necessary that the Church be knowable as the true Church of Christ. But if in even one of her  properties or endowments she could fail at any time, the Church would not be knowable. This  can be proved in many ways: to signify something, we say that it is clear from the intimate connection,  by which the things that constitute the Church or follow from its constitution, are bound together. For  example, suppose that visibility is lost; now the apostolic succession, which depends on it, will perish,  and also unity. Suppose the apostolic government were to perish; now the principle that causes  unity will cease, and the Church will no longer be a society: and if you substitute another  government, now it will not be that society which Christ instituted. Suppose that infallibility were  to perish; now the extrinsic principle of unity of faith ceases. The Protestants say that the Church can  fail as to the faith. But if this be taken away or changed, it radically subverts the seed of the soul of the  Church; and what will become of holiness, when that is missing which is called the beginning and root  of all justice? Anyone can follow this. 

2) If the Church could defect at any time, then at no time could she effectively exercise her  mission and authority. For if it were known beforehand that the mission of the Church could  totally fail, or even be interrupted, that would deprive it of all weight, that is to say, it would  reduce its practical force to nothing. For every rebel would immediately say that the mission of  the Church had failed or become corrupted; and consequently one can no longer have faith in it,  nor obey it. This is confirmed by the example of the Innovators, who by that supposition behaved in  that way, and invented an extraordinary mission. 

Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 600 

https://books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA600 

784. Indeed as regards infallibility in believing, two things must chiefly be noted. First is:  although the faith and the belief of the faithful can be seen and explored in isolation, nevertheless it can never be really separated from the faith of the teaching Church. For the obedience of faith, which is  found in the faithful, responds as the effect of the teaching authority which resides in the Pastors: thus,  as there will always be a multitude of faithful professing the true faith, so likewise there will always be  Pastors and Doctors with them, teaching the true faith: and thus the bond of unity shall always remain,  which, by the institution of Christ, must exist between the Pastors and the people. 

6.2. Visibility, Unity, Mission www.hoyletutoring.com/research 37

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 633-37 

https://books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA633  

828. … It is not necessary to prove at length here at the outset, that the true Church of Christ  can be recognized with certainty: for – 1) the Church is a necessary society; for unless we wish to  say that God can fail in necessary things, we must say that the true Church can be known with  certainty – 2) the Church is formally visible; therefore the true Church can be discerned with  

certainty. … 

829. But if the true Church can be discerned with certainty, everyone understands that some  marks must be given, by which she is certainly made manifest; for unless these marks were given, one  could not distinguish the true church from the false churches, as there are many congregations that  claim the name “christian Church” for themselves. Thus the very Innovators, although they have often  called the Church invisible, are inconsistent with themselves, by not refusing to admit some external  notes by which the true Church of Christ can be discerned. …  

830. Also, the nature and the function of the marks is easily understood from what was said  above. But it's fitting to recall some things here. Thus the marks of the Church can be described as  follows: “external, proper, and permanent characters, by which the true Church of Christ can be  known with certainty, easily and by all.” It says – 1) external characters: for it deals with discerning  the Church, which is essentially a visible society; nor could it be known by men, if it were entirely  internal. – 2) Proper; “for if,” says Bellarmine, “I wish to describe to you a certain man, whom you  have never seen, so that as soon as you see him, you will distinguish him from others, I ought not to  say: he is one who has two eyes, two hands, etc., for these are common to all.” – 3) Permanent; for as  the Church is a society that is always necessary, it must always be able to be known: therefore the characters, by which it is known, must remain forever. Besides, as we shall soon see, the marks of the Church are her properties insofar as they are manifested externally: but those pertain to the  very essence of the Church, or necessarily follow from it: therefore as long as the Church exists,  so long must remain the characters by which she is known – 4) By which the Church is known: of  course the marks are the means leading us to knowledge of the Church; thus they must be known to us better and earlier than the Church herself: for our mind, in attaining the truth, only  proceeds to things unknown by means of things known. But take note that the marks bring us to  the knowledge of the true Church of Christ in the concrete and individually, not to the true  Church in the abstract; therefore they must be better known to us, than the Church in the  concrete, although not known to us prior to the Church in the abstract. Indeed the knowledge of  the marks presupposes the knowledge of the Church in the abstract; for one is cannot make up  the notes of the Church at his own pleasure, but must derive them from the very nature of the  Church, according to the institution of Christ. Thus it is necessary to first know what and how  the Church of Christ is, so that by the marks thus determined, we may distinguish between the  various groups that glory in the Christian name, which is the true Church – 5) Easily and by all; because the Church was instituted for all men, learned and unlearned, and is necessary to all;  therefore the characters by which the Church is discerned should be such, that they can make  her known even to the untaught. But observe that the demonstration of the true Church in the  concrete by her marks, is the same in its substance, whether it be made for the learned or for the  unlearned; for it rests entirely upon the same principles: but the way in which the demonstration is  proposed, the breadth to which it is explained, the force by which it is propounded, are different  according to the diversity of talents, cultures, and prejudices. Thus the simple and obvious application  

6.2. Visibility, Unity, Mission www.hoyletutoring.com/research 38

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

of the marks, which suffices for the simple and the sincere, should be proposed and argued according to a scientific method for those whose mind is preoccupied with prejudices and difficulties. … 831. From this, the function of the marks of the Church is now understood. But to make this  more clear, take note – 1) in dealing with this question, we no longer consider the Church in the generic sense as the true religion, comparing it to other antichristian sects; that question was settled in the  second disputation, by the marks of the true religion, which we listed in the first disputation. Here the  question is between those, who now profess that the christian religion is the only true religion; and we  make a comparison between congregations which, although diverse, nevertheless they all claim to be  the true Church of Christ. Keeping this warning in mind, many difficulties will be avoided, as being  out of place. For example, if someone objects that also in the Mohamedan religion there is unity of  doctrine, therefore such unity cannot be a mark of the true Church, one could respond (leaving aside  the multiplicity of sects among the Mohamedans) that not the unity of any doctrine whatsoever, but  unity in the profession of the christian doctrine is a note of the Church. But the doctrine and religion of the Mohamedans is proved false by other characteristics, both intrinsic and extrinsic. 2) Nor is it necessary to analyze every single one of the heretical and schismatic sects. For many are extinct, and others are now almost extinct. … Thus it will be sufficient to consider the Roman  Church, the congregations of Protestants, and the congregations of Greek Schismatics; what is said of  these can easily be adapted also to others, if there are any. 

… 

832. But what indeed are these marks? Luther first assigned seven marks, always excluding  those which are found in the Creed, and especially Apostolicity; but later, the Innovators commonly  acknowledged only two: the sincere preaching of the world of God, and the legitimate use of the  Sacraments. These two include Luther's first five. 

833. But truly, these two marks absolutely cannot be admitted; for they lack those conditions,  which are necessary to establish a mark. Indeed – 1) they are not marks proper to the true Church  alone. For in very truth, they can be found in those congregations, which certainly are not the true  Church of Christ: among pure schismatics can survive for a time both sincere doctrine, and the  legitimate use of the Sacraments, as occurred amond the Luciferians and the Donatists after their  schisms began. But according to their opinion, which we reject, any sect whatsoever will claim for  itself the sincere preaching of the word of God and the sincere use of the Sacraments; thus there is need for another indication, that we may distinguish in which of them the preaching of the word of God is  truly sincere, and in which it is falsely tossed about. 

2) Nor are those same two marks better known to us than the Church itself. For the  sincere preaching and use of the Sacraments, as our adversaries contend, is determined by their  conformity to the word of God; but it is more difficult to know the true word of God, than to  know the Church. For who will easily judge the authenticity of manuscripts, the fidelity of  versions, the truth of interpretation, etc.? This is why the Fathers teach that the truth of doctrine is not to be judged, but by the Church. 

3) Thus, by these same two marks the true Church of Christ could not be distinguished  from false sects easily and by all; can it be known easily and to all what is the genuine word of  God, in what version it is faithfully presented, what is its true meaning, etc. 

6.2. Visibility, Unity, Mission www.hoyletutoring.com/research 39

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 638-41 

https://books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA638 

Prop. XXXVI. 1. Unity, Holiness, Catholicity, and Apostolicity are the true marks of the Church – 2.  and these being rightly applied, it is established as certain that the Roman Church is the one true  Church of Christ; thus all other congregations that are outside her communion, claiming for  themselves the name of Christian, are proved to not be the true Church of Christ. 

836. Proof of the 1st part. I. Anything is known best and with certainty by its properties, if they  are displayed exteriorly. If, for example, you have the definition of a man, and by speech or other signs you see in some individual the use of reason, you thus conclude that there is a rational soul in that  individual; and seeing also his body, you rightly conclude that this individual is a man. Likewise Unity,  Holiness, Catholicity, Apostolicity, as has been demonstrated, are the properties of the Church; and they are displayed exteriorly as we shall soon confirm. Thus Unity etc. are the marks, or characteristics, of  the Church of Christ, by which the true Church of Christ is known with certainty. 

837. II. Unity, Holiness, Catholicity, and Apostolicity fulfill all the conditions that we have said  are required to constitute a mark of the Church. Thus they are true marks of the Church. Proof of the antecedent. And – 1) they are something proper and not common; for, as is  obvious from the explanation and demonstration of their meaning, they either pertain to the very  essence of the Church, or at least they are her properties. – 2) Thus it follows that these same marks  are permanent in the Church. – 3) They are also external and knowable. For unity of faith is  manifested by the external profession of faith, which cannot be hypocrisy in the whole  congregation; and the government of men must be external, just as obedience must be external. Holiness is manifested externally by the exercise of great virtues even unto a heroic degree, by  wonderful fruitfulness, by miracles, which are sensible things. The Apostolic succession is also  external; and since, as previously said, the Apostolic succession contains in itself adequate  Apostolicity, the Apostolicity of the Church is simply visible, that is, knowable with certainty. Likewise Catholicity, both in fact and simultaneously, is something external, and we have already  proved that the Church's catholicity is such. – 4) In addition, these marks are knowable easily and by  all. This is clear from their very application. But, to illustrate the idea, anyone can easily understand,  for example, that the Church of Christ must be one by unity of doctrine; for one cannot say that Christ  taught contradictory things, or that He both taught and did not teach one and the same thing. But  anyone can also easily see that in his own sect there are as many beliefs as there are men, and that there exists no sufficient principle of unity in faith; while on the contrary, in the Catholic Church  the common profession of some external and infallible magisterium argues for unity of doctrine.  Likewise, anyone can easily understand that the government of the Church must be Apostolic, for  everyone knows that the Church was founded by Christ in the Apostles; but by the very names of  various sects, the times of their founding, etc. their lack of Apostolicity is made manifest; while on the contrary, in the Catholic Church the Apostolic succession in the Roman See is conspicuous, as well as the communion of the others with it. Anyone can continue this, and the matter will be clear,  if of course the previous warning is kept in mind as to the different ways of setting forth the whole  demonstration as suited to different dispositions of mind … – 5) Finally, the same characteristics of  Unity, etc. are better known to us than the true Church itself taken in the concrete and individually. For they, being external, strike our eyes, so to speak, first and immediately; and from these marks,  supposing the knowledge of the true Church of Christ in the abstract, by reasoning we conclude  

6.2. Visibility, Unity, Mission www.hoyletutoring.com/research 40

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

that this congregation and not another is the true Church of Christ: for something that leads us  to the knowledge of another thing is better known to us, than that thing itself; thus [the conclusion  follows]. – Thus the Fathers always used these same marks to discern the true Church. 

838. Proof of the 2nd part. I. from the Unity of the Church. And first: the Roman Church is  One. Indeed it has – 1) unity of faith as to the fact; for all the faithful dispersed throughout the  world have the same profession of faith, by which they believe the truths defined by the Church; the truth once authentically defined has never been retracted; indeed, in the passage of time new  definitions have been issued, but by which the same ancient revelation is proposed more clearly and  more explicitly. There can be disagreement among Catholics regarding some truths not yet defined by  the Church, but all profess their readiness to accept her judgment; and the Church has steadfastly cast  out from her bosom whoever denies even one of the certainly revealed truths. So great is the unity and  stability in this same faith, in the Catholic Church, that her adversaries turn it into a vice, either  because, they say, that stability is a sign of death, or because it is the enemy of progress. – The Church  also has unity of faith as to the right; indeed, she recognizes an effective extrinsic principle of unity,  that is, the apostolic magisterium, by which she is infallible in teaching. – 3) Indeed all her  members, wherever they may be, adhere to One Head, the Roman Pontiff, in whom they  acknowledge the primacy of jurisdiction in the universal Church: and thus the Roman Church  has unity of government. 

Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 645-47 

https://books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA645  

841. IV. [Proof that the Roman Church is the one true Church of Christ] by the mark of  Apostolicity. That the Roman Church is Apostolic, we have already proved. And in many ways it can  easily be proved that none of the sects has Apostolicity. For – 1) The Apostolic Succession, in which  

all Apostolicity is contained, supposes Episcopal consecration: but Calvin was not even a priest,  although he was called the Bishop of Geneva; Luther, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, as is certainly known  and they themselves admitted, were never ordained as Bishops. Thus neither do they acknowledge the  distinction of divine law between clerics and Laics, and the hierarchy instituted by Christ in the clerical order: which error we have refuted above. – 2) But from whom did the Innovators receive the  mission itself? The Roman Church, from which they separated, according to them was no longer  the true Church of Christ; for they said that in that time it had defected: thus from it, according  to their own principles, they could not receive a mission. Thus, against them we rightly press the  argument, which the Fathers customarily used against the ancient heresies. “Who are you,” Tertullian  asked, “and when and where did you come from? Where have you been hiding for so long?” And St.  Optatus: “Show the origin of your [Episcopal] chairs, you who want to claim the Holy Church for  yourselves.” And St. Hilary: “This age of the world has now tardily produced these most pious Doctors for me. My faith is late to have them, for I learned it from you, teachers; not having heard of all of  them, I believed you etc.” And St. Augustine: “Where has Donatus come from? From what earth did  he sprout? From what sea did he emerge? From what heaven did he fall?” – 3) Thus it is nearly  pointless to show that Apostolicity of doctrine is lacking to the Protestant sects; for lacking the  Apostolic succession, they lack the principle by which doctrine is kept safely. Bellarmine mentions the testimony of Calvin, expressly admitting the incompatibility of his doctrine with that of antiquity,  and gives a list of heresies that were condemned long before the reformation, which were revived by  

6.2. Visibility, Unity, Mission www.hoyletutoring.com/research 41

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

the Innovators. – 4) But the lack of Apostolicity in the Innovators' sects is so evident, that they  invoke an extraordinary mission, which we rejected above. – 5) To deny the Apostolic succession  among the Greek schismatics, it is sufficient to recall what we already said. But we add one thing to  make the matter more clear: it is known that the Greek Church adhered to the Roman Church  before the separation, and acknowledged in the Roman Pontiff the center of unity: thus either it  was a true Church before the separation, and by the very fact that it is separated from the true  center of unity, it has placed itself outside the Church of Christ by schism, and therefore it has no apostolic mission: or before the separation it was a false Church of Christ, and by the separation  it began to be a true Church; and we ask, how then did it receive a mission? This has even more  force with regard to the Russian Church, which separated at the end of the 17th century from the  Patriarch of Constantinople, for whom, by the authority of the Emperor, a Synod was substituted, of  which the Emperor himself is the chief. Who does not see, that this Church, guilty of a twofold schism, lacks an apostolic mission? Did the Emperor of Russia possess it, to be able to bestow it; or could he  communicate to others that which he himself lacked? And this same thing can be adapted to the  Anglican Church, if need be. 

842. V. We have now outlined the demonstration of these theses, and we will complete it here  with three observations, by which anyone can figure out for himself that a full demonstration of the  matter follows. Thus – 1) these marks considered in themselves, as prescinding from the positive  institution of Christ, constitute a motive of credibility, by which the Christian religion is shown to be  divinely revealed, and the one true religion. For holiness includes miracles: unity is a true miracle in  the moral order; for naturally it cannot happen that innumerable men dispersed throughout the world  should submit their understanding to one visible magisterium, firmly believing all that it teaches;  apostolicity and Catholicity may be reduced to the propagation and conservation of the Christian  religion, which we discussed in the 2nd disputation. Thus the Vatican Council (Constitution Dei Filius,  chap. 3) says: “The Church itself, by reason of its marvellous extension, its eminent holiness and its  inexhaustible fruitfulness in every good thing, its Catholic unity and its invincible stability, is a great  and perpetual motive of credibility, and an irrefutable witness of its own divine mission. And thus, like a standard set up unto the nations,” etc. 

2) From the things thus far disputed, one clear demonstration can thus be composed: either  there is now no Church of Christ, or it is the Roman Church; but one cannot say that the Church that Christ promised and willed to be indefectible, now exists no more; therefore the Roman  Church is the true Church of Christ. To prove the major, take note that there is no sect in which the  marks fit at least as well as in the Roman Church; she it is who at least approaches most closely to the  primitive Church, which all admint to have been the Church of Christ; she alone constantly calls men to the ancient tradition, preserves the same principle of unity, and is equally jealous of unity as she is  impatient of heresy and schism; she was always visible, nor can the occasion, time, place, and  author of her defection be named by her adversaries. It is entirely the opposite with respect to all  the other sects. 

3) It being once demonstrated that the Primacy was instituted in Peter, and was to remain  forever in the Roman Pontiffs, one can easily judge the Roman Church to be the true Church of Christ.  For in the Roman Pontiff she has the center of unity, and consequently the apostolic succession, a  principle of unity of faith, unity of government, and a principle of formal catholicity. Thus St. Cyprian  rightly teaches, that an easy and brief demonstration of the true Church of Christ is contained in that  Primacy. 

6.2. Visibility, Unity, Mission www.hoyletutoring.com/research 42

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

6.3. Necessity of Mission for Ministry 

Council of Trent, Session 23. July 15, 1564. 

https://archive.org/details/thecanonsanddecr00unknuoft/page/172/mode/2up 

Furthermore, the sacred and holy Synod teaches, that, in the ordination of bishops, priests, and of the  other orders, neither the consent, nor vocation, nor authority, whether of the people, or of any civil  power or magistrate whatsoever, is required in such wise as that, without this, the ordination is invalid:  yea rather doth It decree, that all those who, being only called and instituted by the people, or by the  civil power and magistrate, ascend to the exercise of these ministrations, and those who of their own  rashness assume them to themselves, are not ministers of the church, but are to be looked upon as  thieves and robbers, who have not entered by the door. 

Canon VI. – If any one saith, … that those who have neither been rightly ordained, nor sent, by  ecclesiastical and canonical power, but come from elsewhere, are lawful ministers of the word and of  the sacraments; let him be anathema. 

Rev. Sylvester Berry. The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise. St. Louis:  Herder, 1927. p. 272. 

https://archive.org/details/TheChurchOfChristAnApologeticAndDogmaticTreatiseBerryRev.E.Sylveste r5729.o/page/n145/mode/1up 

All power in the Church was originally conferred upon the Apostles, to the exclusion of all others, and  there is not the slightest intimation in Scripture or tradition that Christ promised to confer a similar  power upon others at any time in the future. 

St. Francis de Sales. The Catholic Controversy. 3rd ed. London: Burns & Oates, 1909. pp. 11,  12. https://archive.org/details/catholiccontrove00sain/page/10/mode/2up 

For in effect, to stand up as preacher of God's Word and pastor of souls, — what is it but to call  oneself ambassador and legate of Our Lord, according to that of the Apostle: We are therefore  ambassadors for Christ? (2 Cor. v. 20) … To be legates and ambassadors they should have been sent,  they should have had letters of credit from him whom they boasted of being sent by. 

Rev. Walter Devivier, S.J. Christian Apologetics. vol. II. New York: Wagner, 1924. https://archive.org/details/christianapologe0000devi_b7q2/page/4/mode/2up 

pp. 5-6 

Who are the unlawful pastors to whom nobody is obliged to submit, we learn from Christ  Himself: “They are those that enter not by the door into the sheepfold, but climb up another way.”  (John 10, 1) To all so-called evangelizers, who hold no divine commission, and lack jurisdiction  over the flock, can be rightly applied what the Lord says of false prophets: “I did not send them,  yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied.” (Jer. 23, 21) For, two conditions are  required to constitute a legitimate Christian pastor, a divine vocation and preaching God's revealed  word. 

6.3. Necessity of Mission for Ministry www.hoyletutoring.com/research 43

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

pp. 33-34 

Should a Bishop become a schismatic or a heretic, he could ordain Bishops and priests validly  but not legitimately. The power of jurisdiction requires canonical institution, or a definite or  authoritative nomination, and it can be withdrawn by the legitimate heads of the Church. This power  of jurisdiction comprises, at the same time, the faculty of exercising legitimately, the power of Orders,  and the right to take part in the government of the Church. 

To belong to the legitimate line of the pastors of the Church, or to the hierarchy of jurisdiction,  it is not enough that a Bishop should have received the power of Orders; he must have received besides the mission or authorization to govern a diocese. This statement, which we can deduce from the words  of all the Fathers condemning as schismatics Bishops occupying usurped sees, is moreover evident  enough by itself. The Episcopate is founded for the government of the Church, and the Bishop is chief  and ruler in the Church. He must therefore have subjects on whom to exercise his authority or  governing power. But one cannot give himself subjects. Jesus alone, who had received from His  Father the nations as an inheritance, could confide to those whomsoever He might choose the power to  govern the Faithful, that is to say, the power of jurisdiction. He confided it to the Apostles, and  principally to Peter, their head, with the mission to transmit it to their successors. As to the mode of  transmission, which was not determined by Jesus Christ Himself, it is for the heads of the Church to  prescribe it. 

This mode or method may have varied in the course of time, especially as to the appointments  of the persons who were to receive jurisdiction. Without ever prejudicing the essential right of free  nomination, which the Vicar of Christ possesses for all dignities inferior to his own, it has happened  that at times these persons were designated by election, at others by presentation, sometimes the simple will of the successor of Peter has alone sufficed. 

As it was the Church, and not Jesus Christ, that determined the canonical rules to be observed in this transmission, the Church has the right to modify them according to circumstances. But the  jurisdiction itself dwells at all times in the heads of the Church, and is always transmitted according to  the canonical rules in force at the time. Whosoever, therefore, has not received jurisdiction, according  to those rules, saving the imprescriptible right of the sovereign pastor, remains without it; and even if  he should have received the episcopal character, he does not belong to the hierarchy of jurisdiction.  Having no see and no subjects, it is evident that he is not a chief in the Church, and that he does not  belong to the Apostolic succession. 

Rev. Francis De Zulueta, S.J. Letters on Christian Doctrine. 4th ed. vol. III. London:  Washbourne, 1915. pp. 58-59. 

https://archive.org/details/lettersonchristi03dezuuoft/page/n69/mode/2up 

In order that any minister may have the right to rule and minister to men in spiritual matters at  the present date, it is essential that he should have received this right ultimately from the Fountain and  Source of all spiritual power – the Divine Shepherd, Christ Our Lord. As Our Lord said, when  commissioning His Apostles: “All power is given to Me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach  ye all nations, baptizing them,” etc. (Matt. 28:18) This right, therefore, can only reach the pretending  minister by being transmitted to him personally by Christ through the medium of the Apostles, and  through their duly appointed successor, up to date. “How shall they preach unless they be sent?” (Rom. 10:15) 

6.3. Necessity of Mission for Ministry www.hoyletutoring.com/research 44

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

Moreover – and this is the main point – since men need to know the genuine envoy of Christ  from the spurious one, the fact of this transmission of authority must be a visible, tangible fact, capable of being investigated and tested. Hence the process by which the alleged minister of today  has personally had the right which he claims passed on to him must be susceptible of intelligible proof  from appreciable facts. The right to guide my precious, immortal soul amid the deceitful shoals of this  life, claimed by the Rev. So-and-so, must rest not merely on the fact that he is arrayed clerically,  functions as a clergyman in some ecclesiastical-looking building, or in Hyde Park, or that he asserts, or takes for granted, or inwardly feels that he is sent by Christ. His inward “spiritual experience” of a call and of a mission, if not a delusion, may possibly justify him in conscience for claiming my submission; but, being beyond my ken, it will not suffice my conscience for yielding it. No; if I am duly alive to the seriousness of salvation, I shall need more than all this: namely, that the man before me be able to trace  definitely and intelligibly the pedigree of his pastoral office step by step back to the Divine Shepherd,  the Supreme and Invisible Head of the Christian Church, from whom all spiritual jurisdiction must  needs flow to His earthly ministers. 

Cardinal James Gibbons. Faith of Our Fathers. London: Washbourne, 1917. p. 50. https://archive.org/details/thefaithofourfat27435gut/page/n53/mode/2up 

Not only is it required that ministers of the Gospel should conform their teaching to the doctrine of the Apostles, but also that these ministers should be ordained and commissioned by the Apostles or  their legitimate successors. "Neither doth any man," says the Apostle, "take the honor to himself, but  he that is called by God, as Aaron was." (Heb. v. 4) This text evidently condemns all self-constituted  preachers and reformers; for, "how shall they preach, unless they be sent?" (Rom. x. 15) Sent, of  course, by legitimate authority, and not directed by their own caprice. Hence, we find that those who  succeeded the Apostles were ordained and commissioned by them to preach, and that no others  were permitted to exercise this function. 

Dom Prosper Guéranger, O.S.B. The Liturgical Year. trans. by Dom Laurence Shepherd, O.S.B.  3rd ed. vol. 4: Septuagesima. New York: Benziger, 1909. pp. 286-87. 

https://archive.org/details/V04TheLiturgicalYear/page/n301/mode/2up 

We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received  their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? If their mission come from the apostolic  see, let us honour and obey them, for they are sent to us by Jesus Christ, who has invested them,  through Peter, with His own authority. If they claim our obedience without having been sent by the  bishop of Rome, we must refuse to receive them, for they are not acknowledged by Christ as His  ministers. The holy anointing may have conferred on them the sacred character of the episcopate: it  matters not; they must be as aliens to us, for they have not been sent, they are not pastors.  

Thus it is that the divine Founder of the Church, who willed that she should be a city seated on a mountain (St. Matt. v. 14), gave her visibility; it was an essential requisite; for since all were called to  enter her pale, all must be able to see her. But He was not satisfied with this. He moreover willed  that the spiritual power exercised by her pastors should come from a visible source, so that the  faithful might have a sure means of verifying the claims of those who were to guide them in His  name. Our Lord (we say it reverently) owed this to us; for, on the last day, He will not receive us as  

6.3. Necessity of Mission for Ministry www.hoyletutoring.com/research 45

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

His children, unless we shall have been members of His Church, and have lived in union with Him by  the ministry of pastors lawfully constituted. 

Rev. Peter Kenrick. Anglican Claims to Apostolical Succession Examined. Philadelphia:  Cummiskey, 1848. p. 235. https://books.google.com/books?id=qnErAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA235 

Without valid orders, there can be no ministry; but valid orders may exist without the right to exercise  them; and hence they do not necessarily imply ministry, taken it its full and only salutary sense, of men  having the power and right to exercise ecclesiastical functions. 

Rev. John MacHale. The Evidences and Doctrines of the Catholic Church. London: Dolman,  1842. pp. 350-51 https://books.google.com/books?id=0e5hAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA350 

If Christ did not affect the honours of the priesthood without a solemn appointment from his  heavenly Father; neither can mortal presume to claim or exercise that office without a similar  appointment from him. But how are we to ascertain the proofs of this appointment? By deriving it  from the apostles through an unbroken series of legitimate successors, to whom, in the language  addressed to his apostles, Christ gave his last solemn commission, together with the assurance of his  protection. Through the same ordinary channel of legitimate and hereditary succession by which many  of the prerogatives of society are transmitted, the authority of the priesthood is likewise conveyed. …  any individual, who is not found placed in the hereditary line of succession, cannot be deemed a lawful  depositary of Christ's priesthood. And hence, those who, in every age, have obtruded themselves  into the sanctuary without any authentic evidence of their delegation, have been treated as  usurpers. … The priesthood is an office of divine institution, which Christ has jealously entrusted to  an order of men deriving their hereditary authority from himself. We are, therefore, to listen to none  who would presume to controvert their power, unless, like the apostles themselves, they had evinced  the truth of their commission by the performance of similar wonders. 

Manual of Christian Doctrine, by a Seminary Professor. Philadelphia: McVey, 1910. pp. 125-26. https://archive.org/details/ManualOfChristianDoctrine1910/page/124/mode/2up 

The power of jurisdiction is the power conferred by a superior on a subject, to exercise lawfully a  spiritual function. … It determines precisely the territory within which, the things upon which, and the  persons over whom, bishops and priests are called to exercise their ministry. 

77. How is the power of jurisdiction communicated? 

Priests receive their jurisdiction from the bishop of the diocese; bishops receive theirs from the  Pope; and the Pope holds jurisdiction from Jesus Christ. A bishop who did not have his spiritual  powers from the Pope, a pastor who did not have his from the lawful bishop, would be an  intruder or schismatic. 

78. Is it lawful to receive the sacraments from an intruded pastor? 

Only in case of mortal illness, when it is impossible to have a worthy minister, is it lawful to  receive absolution from an intruded pastor; and even then only when no scandal is thereby given to  others. 

6.3. Necessity of Mission for Ministry www.hoyletutoring.com/research 46

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

Rev. James J. McGovern. The Manual of the Holy Catholic Church. Chicago: Catholic Art &  Pub., 1906. p. 157. https://archive.org/details/TheManualOfTheHolyCatholicChurchV1/page/n231 

[T]he scripture assures us, that “no man taketh the honour of the priesthood upon himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was,” Heb. v. 4.; much less can any man possess the powers of the priesthood,  unless they be given to him by those who have the power to give them. … none who have these  priestly powers can lawfully exercise them, unless they be authorized and commissioned to do so  by being lawfully sent. Thus the apostles received their mission from Christ, who said to them, “As  my Father sent me I also send you,” Jo. xx. 

St. Paul himself sent Titus, as above, that is, authorized and commissioned him to govern the  Church in Crete, and ordain pastors in it under him; and he says, in another place, “How can they  preach unless the be sent?” Rom. x. 15. This, then, is the door by which the true pastors of Christ’s flock enter, to wit, when lawfully ordained and sent, or commissioned by chief pastors of the  Church. For all who take that office upon themselves, without entering by the door are declared  by Christ himself to be “thieves and robbers,” John x. 1.  

Rev. Michael J. Phelan, S.J. The Straight Path. London: Longmans, 1915. pp. 84-86. https://archive.org/details/thestraightpath00pheluoft/page/n99/mode/2up 

Every pastor requires a mission. When Moses went to Pharaoh he did not demand compliance  with his message till he had produced the credential of his mission; the seal that he was a legate duly  authorized by God. In the New Testament we see the minutest exactitude in demanding genuine  charters of authority before undertaking the labours and jurisdiction of a Divine teacher. Christ did not  exempt even Himself. 

… In the affairs of your body you refuse to accept the guidance of every man who places a  brass plate on his door, and styles himself a doctor; you must have a genuine assurance that he is truly  qualified. But are spiritual quacks to pass unchallenged? For far weightier reasons, should you not  demand from the man who presumes to take charge of the interests of your immortal soul, an  authorized commission from that select body set aside by Christ to teach all nations in His name,  confer His Sacraments, and govern by His authority. 

M.J. Rhodes. The Visible Unity of the Catholic Church. London: Longmans, 1870. vol. 1, pp. 43- 44. https://archive.org/details/visibleunityofca01rhod/page/42/mode/2up 

It needs but a slight acquaintance with the maxims, rules, and practices of the universal Church,  to be aware that rightful jurisdiction was always considered essential for the due exercise of the  Episcopal functions; and that such jurisdiction might be forfeited, or withdrawn by competent  authority, though the sacred orders must always remain. 

Rt. Rev. Lawrence Sheil. The Bible Against Protestantism and for Catholicity. 5th ed. Boston:  Donahoe, 1859. pp. 240-41  

https://archive.org/details/thebibleagainstp00sheiuoft/page/240/mode/2up 

Here, then, we need but consult the word of God to inform ourselves upon what footing the conveyance of the ecclesiastical ministry is established by him. Let us first hear Christ himself speak in the  

6.3. Necessity of Mission for Ministry www.hoyletutoring.com/research 47

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

following sacred words: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the  sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and robber.” John, c. 10, v. 1. Here all  are declared thieves and robbers, that is, usurpers of the sacred ministry, who “enter not by the door.”  And lest we should mistake the meaning of this figurative expression, he explains it thus, (v. 7:)  “Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.” So that whoever enters upon the  ministry, and has not his mission from Christ, either immediately, as the apostles had, or  mediately, by deriving it from them or their lawful successors, are here marked out in the  character of thieves and robbers. 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. 

This, then, is the foundation of the ecclesiastical ministry laid by Christ himself; and St. Paul,  his faithful apostle and interpreter, teaches the same doctrine in his Epistle to the Romans, c. 10, v. 15.  “How shall they preach except they be sent?” For if they be not sent, they can be nothing else but  intruders into the sheepfold, usurpers of the sacred ministry, and, in a word, thieves and robbers. 

But the example of Christ himself is most certainly of the greatest weight to convince us that no man can legally enter upon the sacred ministry, except he be sent according to the order established by  God. For if the Son of God took not upon him the preaching of the gospel but as sent by his  eternal Father, what sacrilegious arrogance and presumption must it then be in men to assume to themselves this sacred function without a commission from any lawful authority? Our Savior  therefore, to render us sensible of the necessity of a true mission for every minister of the gospel,  judged it requisite, upon several occasions, to prove his own mission to the Jews. 

United States Catholic Magazine. Apostolicity of the Church. December 1844. pp. 757, 766-67. https://books.google.com/books?id=MkA9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA757 

But there is another condition [besides valid ordination] absolutely required in order to be  linked with the ministry of the apostles, viz: a lawful mission, or authoritative faculty given by one to  whom this right belongs, of preaching, administering the sacraments, and performing the other sacred  functions conducive to the sanctification and salvation of souls. Without this regular mission, which  the very name of apostle (envoy) implies and presupposes, any one who presumes to exercise a  part of the ecclesiastical duties of his own accord, is, both in the eyes of reason and of faith, a  profane intruder, usurping a charge which does not belong to him, and he has no title, no right,  no power, and no jurisdiction in the church. “How,” says the Scripture, “shall they call on him  (God) in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe in him of whom they have not  heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how can they preach unless they be sent?”  (Rom. x. 14, 15) Even in civil society, no one is allowed to thrust himself into a public employment  unless he is called to it by lawful authority; how much less can any one be allowed to do this in the  church of Christ, in that society whose author and founder is the Son of God? 

… 

Necessity of setting up a new ministry! But where is it written in the authentic records of divine revelation, that necessity can found a divine mission? We read in the Scripture: “Neither doth any man  take the honor to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was.” (Hebr. v.) Where do we read  

6.3. Necessity of Mission for Ministry www.hoyletutoring.com/research 48

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

“neither doth any man take the honor to himself, but he that is called to it by necessity?” We  learn also from St. Paul that no one can preach, unless he be sent.” (Rom. x.) But where is it said, “except in the case of necessity?” Necessity, therefore, is in this case an unmeaning word. God  alone has the right to appoint his ministers, his ambassadors, the preachers of his word, the  dispensers of his mysteries. If any necessity arose for deviating from his laws, he alone could  provide for the emergency. If the ministry originally instituted had fallen and become invalid at  the time of the reformation, no one but Christ in person could have restored it, or set up a new  one in its place. 

Rev. Gerard Van Noort. Dogmatic Theology, Volume II: Christ's Church. Westminster MD:  Newman Press, 1957. pp. 152, 154 

https://archive.org/details/vannoortvol2christschurch/page/n87/mode/1up 

…on 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 (Matt. 28:18-20; 16:18-19; John  21:15-17). This triple power, therefore, necessarily belongs, and can only belong, to those who  form one moral person with the apostles: their legitimate successors. 

Since the original Protestants obviously lacked apostolicity of government, they took refuge in  an appeal to the theory of an “extraordinary mission.” To put it briefly, they maintained that God could at some time raise up a group of men by an extraordinary vocation and confer on them apostolic  functions if current apostolic pastors should become viciously corrupt. This was the case, they  asserted, with Luther and the other reformers. 

It is clear, however, if any such extraordinary mission were ever to be granted by God, it  would have to be proven by miracles, or other clearly divine trademarks. The plain truth is,  however, that Christ's own promises completely rule out the possibility of any such extraordinary mission. Understand now, we are talking about a mission by which a man absolutely apart from and  utterly independent of apostolic succession would receive from God the power to rule (or reform)1 the  Church. Christ conferred sacred powers on His apostles and their successors until the end of the world. Further, He promised them His perpetual and unfailing assistance (Matt. 28:17-20). Consequently  Christ would be contradicting Himself were He ever to deprive the legitimate successors of the apostles of their authority. 

Granted that fact, it would be a further contradiction for God to confer the same power or a  similar power on other men who were not in union with the ordinary successors. 

Rev. Wilhelm Wilmers. Handbook of the Christian Religion. New York: Benziger, 1891. p. 77. https://archive.org/details/handbookreligion00wilmuoft/page/n105/mode/2up 

The charge intrusted by Christ to His Church, comprises the threefold office and threefold  power of teacher, priest, and pastor. In virtue of the first the Church communicates the truths of  revelation; in virtue of the second she administers the means of grace; in virtue of the third she  efficaciously directs the faithful to their last end. 

1 Many saints have arisen from time to time to reinvigorate the moral life of Catholics (a Bernard, a Francis of Assisi, a  Catherine of Siena, a Charles Borromeo, etc.), but they have always done so in a spirit of perfect obedience to the  Church's legitimate pastors. 

6.3. Necessity of Mission for Ministry www.hoyletutoring.com/research 49

Independent Catholic Traditionalism is Wrong – brief version v1.0 — 7 February 2023 

This threefold office and its attendant rights are reducible to two chief sources: orders and  jurisdiction. The former (potestas ordinis) confers upon the priesthood of the Church the power of  administering the Sacraments, of dispensing the graces necessary for salvation; the latter (potestas  jurisdictionis) confers the power of efficaciously directing the faithful to the attainment of salvation —  

guiding the understanding by the light of revealed truth, and the will by law and precept. The power of jurisdiction is required in the priest for the valid administration of the sacrament of penance, and for the lawful exercise of the other ministries; wherefore orders without jurisdiction are insufficient for the  dispensation of the means of salvation. 

Version History 

7 February 2023 version 1.0 

6.3. Necessity of Mission for Ministry www.hoyletutoring.com/research 50