Mario Derksen of Novus Ordo Watch Denies the
Dogma of Indefectibility
(and ALL
Sedevacantists do the same)
John Salza, J.D.
October A.D. 2024
When we recently challenged Sedevacantist Mario Derksen of Novus Ordo Watch to tell us which bishops in the world today have jurisdiction, he first expressed his ignorance about this dogmatic necessity as it pertains to the Church’s attribute of indefectibility (that Christ’s Church will always have a College of Bishops with mission and jurisdiction from the Pope until the end of time). He then ended by effectively denying the dogma.
We asked: “Do any Bishops in the world today have ordinary jurisdiction?” (September 5, 2024, 4.28pm).
Derksen responded: “If Catholic dogma requires it, then there are some today. But if Francis is Pope, then none of this matters.” (September 5, 2024, 4.39pm).
“If” Catholic dogma requires it? Is
Mr. Dersken serious? Unfortunately, he is. This statement reveals the depth of
Derksen’s theological ignorance as well as the end to which the errors of the
Sedevacantism have led him. It is a dogma of the Faith that the Catholic Church
will exist as Christ founded it (One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic) until the
end of time. The perpetual existence of the true Church as Christ originally
founded it is called indefectibility. This promise of Christ applies
to the visible structure of the Church (members, including prelates,
naturally come and go over time, but the structure, as Christ founded it,
remains the same).
To elaborate, when Christ established the Church, He created
the Apostolic College (of Bishops) or Teaching Office of the Church (Mt 18:18),
of which the Pope is the visible head or rock (Mt. 16:18). This is the divine
structure of the Church (the Papacy and College of Bishops) against which “the
gates of hell shall not prevail.” This is the indefectible structure which, through
apostolic succession, perdures throughout the centuries. Through this structure,
Christ’s mission of salvation is carried out until the end of time, and to deny
that this structure continues to carry out this mission – which is another
grave error of Mario Derksen and his fellow Sedevacantist heretics – is to
affirm that Christ has failed to keep his Promise “I will be with you all days,
even the consummation of the world” (Mt. 20:28), and the Holy Ghost has failed
in His mission of preserving the Church. Thus, in St. Peter and the Apostles,
Our Lord created the Papacy and Apostolic College; and, just as He chose His
Apostles and gave them the authority (mission and jurisdiction) to teach,
sanctify and govern (Jn 20:21; Rom 10:15), so does the Vicar of Christ choose
and send the successors to the Apostles to do the same, in this identical ecclesiastical
structure, until the end of time.
This means the Church will always have a body of Bishops
who have been chosen and sent (with canonical mission and
jurisdiction) from the Pope. Even when the Pope dies, the body of
Bishops with the mission and jurisdiction that the bishops have received from
the Pope continues to exist. If this divine institution ever ceased to exist,
as Derksen and his Sedevacantist colleagues falsely claim, the Church as Christ
founded it would cease to exist, because the Church would no longer be
“Apostolic” (apostolicity is the mark of the Church which refers to this perpetual
existence of the body of Bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, who were chosen by
and given mission and jurisdiction from the Pope).[1] If
the Church ever lacked a body of bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, she would
cease to exist as Christ founded her, and hence the indefectible Church would
have defected, which is not possible. But that is indeed where the error of
Sedevacantism necessarily leads, since bishops can only receive their
jurisdiction from a Pope, as Pius XII teaches.
While Derksen might give lip service to the dogma of indefectibility, he cannot reconcile the dogma with his Sedevacantist heresy, and that is precisely why (1) he dares to question whether the dogma even exists; (2) he cannot actually name any bishops with jurisdiction, which is a practical denial of the dogma; (3) and, finally, throws in the towel by saying “none of this matters,” which is an outright denial of the dogma. Derksen’s rejection of a fundamental Catholic dogma, which is professed in the Creed every Sunday, has caused him to leave the Roman Catholic Church and join a Sedevacantist sect called the CMRI. This sect was founded by Francis Schuckhardt, a mentally-deranged individual who went from laymen to “bishop” in one day in a Chicago hotel, at the hands of another schismastic, Daniel Q. Brown, of the “Old Catholic” sect, who would actually denounce “the Schuckhardt cult” within two years of Schuckhardt’s “ordination” and “consecration.” But the founder of Mario's sect didn't stop there: seven years later Schuckardt claimed to have been secretly crowned Pope by the Blessed Mother!. He subsequently took the papal name Hadrian VII (see picture on right). Schuckardt split from the CMRI six years later (1984) when it was revealed that he had been sexually assaulting his seminarians "for at least a decade". But the sect Schuckardt founded - the CMRI - lives on to this day, continues the work of its founder, by deceiving and being deceived.
The foregoing is a summation of why Derksen, and all Sedevacantists, reject the Catholic dogma of indefectibility. For those who would like a further explication of the pertinent theology, please keep reading.
There Will Always be a College of Bishops
(who are chosen and sent by the Pope)
The eternal
shepherd and guardian of our souls, in order to render permanent the saving
work of redemption, determined to build a Church in which, as in the house of
the living God, all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one faith and
charity. … So then, just as he sent apostles,
whom he chose out of the world, (Jn 15, 19), even as he had been sent by the
Father (Jn. 20,21), in like manner it was his will that in his Church there
should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.
The First Vatican Council at least implicitly defined: a) that the
Magisterium was divinely instituted in the Apostles (D 2013, 2018); … c) that
the Magisterium instituted by Christ is going to continue perennially (D
3050-3052,371).
If anyone saith, that, in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy by divine ordination instituted, consisting of bishops, priests, and ministers; let him be anathema. (The Council of Trent, On the Sacrament of Order, Canon VI.)
Notice
that Trent does not mention the Pope in this canon which, of course, it does
elsewhere in its teaching. This is because, in this particular canon, Trent was
not primarily defining the structure of the Church or the rank of its ministers
(or it would have mentioned the Pope), but rather that the structure Christ
established will always exist (which the Protestants denied).[2] Because the council obviously recognized there are interregna
after Popes die, but the Catholic Church continues to exist during these
periods, it refers to “bishops, priests and ministers” as the constantly
perduring “hierarchy by divine ordination instituted,” that is, the perpetual existence
of those men who have been received and sent by the Pope through juridical
mission, even in the absence of a reigning Pope (due to death or resignation). As
Bellarmine explains, “once Episcopal jurisdiction has been conferred, it is not
lost when the one who gave it dies, but when the one who receives it dies, or
when someone who is able to do so takes it away.”[3]
Citing the above teaching of Trent as his authority, Van Noort explains it is a dogma of faith that Apostolic College will exist forever, comprised of men with threefold power to teach, govern and sanctify:
Proposition: 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 threefold 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 the threefold
power which the apostles enjoyed.
This thesis is a dogma of faith, as we know,
e.g., from the Council of Trent, Sess. 23, c. 4 (DB 960).[4]
Proof:
1) From the
indestructability 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 power of the
apostles. This is clear. (…) If the preaching, priestly ministration, government
of the apostles were to stop, the Church would by that very fact immediately
vanish. (…)
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 behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of
the world’[5](Mt 28:20). But how could He possibly be forever
present to the apostolic college in the word of teaching, sanctifying, and
ruling, unless the college itself were to last forever; unless the apostles
were to have a never-ending line of successors in their word of teachers,
priests, and rulers.[6]
The Oath of Modernism confirms the same by requiring the prelate to affirm his belief that the charism of truth “is, was, and always will be in the Succession of the Episcopacy from the Apostles” (the Apostolic College).
Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. (…) I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the Succession of the Episcopacy from the Apostles.
Again, while it is possible for the Church
to exist for a time without a Pope (i.e., during an interregnum), there can never be a time when the entire Teaching
Body (the hierarchy) ceases to exist, as Derksen & Co. has been deceived to
believe. As Van Noort explained above, it is a dogma of the Faith that there will always be a hierarchy of bishops
endowed by the Pope with the threefold power to teach, govern and sanctify. Nor
could all the bishops with jurisdiction fall into heresy during an interregnum
(as the Sedevacantists say happened at or immediately after Vatican II),
without Christ failing in his Promise that “I will be with you all days,” and “the
gates of hell shall not prevail” against the Church.
In the magnificent book, Manual of Dogmatic Theology (1906), by Wilhelm and Scannell, we read:
The
Indefectibility of the Teaching Body[7] is at the same time a condition and a consequence of
the Indefectibility of the Church. A distinction must, however, be drawn
between the Indefectibility of the Head [Pope], and the Indefectibility of the
subordinate members [Bishops]. The individual who is the Head may die, but the
authority of the Head does not die with him – it is transmitted to his
successor. On the other hand, the Teaching Body as a whole could not die or
fail without irreparably destroying the continuity of authentic testimony.
Again, the Pope’s authority would not be injured if, when not exercising it (extra judicium), he professed a false
doctrine, whereas the authenticity of the episcopal testimony would be
destroyed if under any circumstances the whole body fell into heresy.[8]
The claim that there is no longer a body of Bishops (or doubting its existence; or refusing to name actual bishops with jurisdiction) is one of the most revealing errors of the Sedevacantist heresy, because it denies the dogma of indefectibility, which is does by affirming that the Teaching Body, as a whole, fell into heresy, and thus ceased to be part of the Church (becoming, instead, part of the “Conciliar Church” or “Novus Ordo Church”).
The College of Bishops Preserves Legitimate Apostolic Succession
What Derksen & Co. does not
understand is that Episcopal Orders (i.e.,
the sacramental consecration of a bishop, which even the founding “bishop” of
Derksen’s sect may have received) is only the material aspect of this apostolic succession; jurisdiction, which is the
lawful authority to teach and
govern in Christ’s Church, constitutes the formal aspect. Even “bishops”
of heretical and schismatic groups, such as the CMRI, SSPV, SSPX, Resistance, etc.
possess material succession, but it
does not make them legitimate successors of the Apostles nor members of the
College of Bishops.
When a bishop is lawfully consecrated,
he becomes a member of the College of Bishops; the bishops in the College
collectively share in the universal jurisdiction of the Pope (Mt. 18:17-18).
When a bishop is appointed to an episcopal see, he also receives the authority
to carry out the rights and duties attached to that office. This papal
conferral of mission is referred to as being sent (Romans 10:15).[9] Christ conferred the apostolic mission on the
Apostles when He said, “as the Father has sent me, I also send
you” (John 20:21), and the Church confers the same mission and authority
on the bishops when they are sent. This authority makes them a legitimate
successor of the Apostles and member of the Teaching Church, or hierarchy (none
of the “bishops” of the SSPX, Sedevacantist, Old Catholic or independent sects
have been sent by the Church; they have neither title, nor office, nor mission,
nor jurisdiction, but remain acephalous clerics, “with no head”).
R. P. Herrmann elaborates on this point in Theologiæ Dogmaticæ Institutiones:
Succession may be material or formal.
Material succession consists in the fact that there have never been lacking
persons who have continuously been substituted for the Apostles; formal
succession consists in the fact that these substituted persons truly enjoy authority
derived from the Apostles and received from him who is able to communicate
it. For someone to be made a successor of the Apostles and pastor of the
Church, the power of order — which is always validly conferred by virtue of
ordination — is not enough; the power of jurisdiction is also required, and
this is conferred not by virtue of ordination but by virtue of a mission
received from him to whom Christ has entrusted the supreme power over the
universal Church [i.e., the Roman Pontiff].[10]
It has already been established (see no.
34) that bishops succeeded to the position in the Church originally filled by
the apostles. But as was pointed out, this succession does not mean that a
particular bishop succeeded to the job of a particular apostle (…) Rather, it
means that the college of bishops, viewed collectively, succeeded the
apostolic college, viewed collectively. It may be asked then: “How can you
be sure that this o that bishop should be counted as a legitimate successor
of the apostles.” Obviously, a man does not become a genuine successor to the
Apostles merely by arrogating to himself the title of ‘bishop,’ or by carrying
on in some fashion a function once performed by the Apostles. Neither is it
enough for a man merely to possess some one, individual power, say for example,
the power of orders. – The power of
orders can be acquired even illicitly, and once acquired can never be lost. – What
is required for genuine apostolic succession is that a man enjoy the complete powers (i.e., ordinary powers,
not extraordinary) of an apostle. He must, then, in addition to the power of
orders, possess also the power of jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction means the power to teach and govern. – This power is conferred
only by a legitimate authorization...[11]
How could a man belong to the college of
the successors of the apostles unless he were united to the head of the
college and acknowledged by him as belonging to it? Any man, then, who boasts of apostolic
succession but is not united to the Roman pontiff, may indeed actually possess
the power of orders; he may even by purely physical succession occupy a chair
formerly occupied by an apostle - at least he could do so - but he would not be
a genuine successor of the apostles in their pastoral office.[12]
[S]ome knowledge of succession is
necessary for a proper conception of apostolicity of ministry. Succession, as used in this connection, is the following
of one person after another in an official position, and may be either legitimate or illegitimate. Theologians call the one formal succession; the other, material.
A material successor is one who assumes the official position of another
contrary to the laws or constitution of the society in question. He may be
called a successor in as much as he actually holds the position, but he has
no authority, and his acts have no official value, even though he be ignorant
of the illegal tenure of his office. A formal, or legitimate, successor not
only succeeds to the place of his predecessor, but also receives due authority
to exercise the functions of his office with binding force in the society. 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 the apostolic
authority from age to age. One who
intrudes himself into the ministry against the laws of the Church receives no
authority... [13]
The Catholic Encyclopedia explains that formal apostolic succession is the surest mark of the true Church:
Apostolicity is the mark by which the
Church of today is recognized as identical with the Church founded by Jesus
Christ upon the Apostles. It is of great importance because it is the
surest indication of the true Church of Christ. (…) In explaining the concept
of Apostolicity, then, special attention must be given to Apostolicity of mission,
or Apostolic succession. Apostolicity of mission means that the
Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to
the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an
unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth. This
authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic
succession…
No one can give a power which he does not possess. Hence in tracing the mission of the Church back to the Apostles, no lacuna can be allowed, no new mission can arise; but the mission conferred by Christ must pass from generation to generation through an uninterrupted lawful succession. The Apostles received it from Christ and gave it in turn to those legitimately appointed by them, and these again selected others to continue the work of the ministry. Any break in this succession destroys Apostolicity, because the break means the beginning of a new series which is not Apostolic. "How shall they preach unless they be sent?" (Romans 10:15) (…) any concept of Apostolicity that excludes authoritative union with the Apostolic mission robs the ministry of its Divine character. Apostolicity, or Apostolic succession, then, means that the mission conferred by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles must pass from them to their legitimate successors, in an unbroken line, until the end of the world.[15]
The Final Nail in the Coffin:
Jurisdiction Comes from the Pope Alone
This is why Derksen says “If Francis is Pope, then none of
this matters.” Indeed, these questions don’t matter to Mario Derksen because he
cannot reconcile his Sedevacantist heresy with the dogma of indefectibility
and, hence, must brush them off and pretend they don’t matter. The critical
questions concerning jurisdiction, mission, apostolicity and indefectibility
don’t matter to Derksen because his “church” does not possess the marks and
attributes that the true Church does, which he rejects. In short, these questions
don’t matter to Derksen because he rejects the Catholic Church and the Catholic
Faith.
Ironically, the last Pope Mr. Derksen recognizes repeatedly confirmed this most certain doctrine of the Church throughout his pontificate. For example, in Mystici Corporis Christi (1943), Pope Pius XII teaches that bishops “are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff,” and receive their jurisdiction “directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.”[16] In Ad Sinarum Gentem (1954), he says: “The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity.”[17] Pius XII repeated the same doctrine in Ad Apostolorum Principis (1958):
Granted
this exception, it follows that bishops who have been neither named nor
confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary, have been elected and
consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy no powers of teaching or
of jurisdiction since jurisdiction
passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in
the encyclical letter Mystici Corporis
in the following words: “. . . As far as his own diocese is concerned each
(bishop) feeds the flock entrusted to him as a true shepherd and rules it in
the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether
independent but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff,
although enjoying ordinary power of
jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.”[18]
And when We later addressed to you the letter Ad Sinarum gentem, We again referred to this teaching in these words: “The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity.”[19] [20]
What Pope Pius XII taught above confirms what the Church has always taught concerning jurisdiction. Four centuries earlier, Cajetan noted that this was the teaching of St. Thomas and “all the Catholic doctors,” and then quotes Pope Leo I who taught the same:
All jurisdiction flowed and flows from Peter into all the rest of the Church’s body, according to Pope Leo’s saying in c. Dominus (D. 19 c. 7): “The Lord so wished the sacrament of this gift to belong to the office of all the apostles that He placed it principally in most blessed Peter, the chief of all the apostles, so that from him, as from a head, He might pour out His gifts, as it were, upon the whole body.”[21]
As all Catholics
know, Christ constituted the Church as a monarchical society, with the Pope as
the sole visible head. In a monarchy,
all authority flows down from the top. The Pope receives his authority directly
from Christ, and all others receive theirs from the Pope. “All ecclesiastical
government is monarchical,” wrote Bellarmine, “therefore all authority is in
one man, and it is derived from him to others.”[22] All bishops, therefore, receive their
authority directly from the Pope, and only from the Pope.
As we said above, this is the final nail in Derksen’s Sedevacantist coffin because, if Pius XII were the last Pope, it means none of the bishops currently in charge of Episcopal Sees possess jurisdiction (all of the bishops appointed by Pius XII are dead). If no bishops in the world possess jurisdiction (which is what Derksen actually believes), the Church no longer possesses a hierarchy of legitimate successors of the Apostles, which is part of the Divine Constitution of the Church. Without a hierarchy, the Church would lack the mark of apostolicity, and therefore would no longer exist as Christ founded it. The error that Pius XII was the last true Pope leads to the unavoidable conclusion that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church, which is contrary to dogma of indefectibility and the promises of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Sedevacantist Last Ditch Effort: Apostolicity in Doctrine?
Unfortunately for Derksen, “apostolicity in the doctrine” is itself not a mark of the Church, since a mark is something that is more easily recognized as true, than the Church itself, which is not the case with doctrine (e.g., it is not more easily recognized as true that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, than from the Father alone. Thus, “apostolicity in doctrine” is not a mark of the Church, but it has always been alleged by heretics as a basis to reject the true Church in favor of their own sects. Van Noort explains:
Apostolicity of doctrine should not be listed as a mark of the Church because it is not something obvious. Furthermore, it is not something easier to recognize than the true Church herself. For it is extraordinarily difficult, in fact impossible, to have certitude about the entire body of doctrine taught by the apostles without the testimony of Christ’s Church. It presumes, then, that the Church is already identified. That is why the rule of faith has always been: find out who are the successors of the apostles, and which society is a continuation of the Church planted by the apostles, then you will be able to receive the pure and complete doctrine taught by the apostles. Notice, too, that apostolicity of doctrine, taken all by itself would be only a negative mark of the Church; for there is nothing intrinsically contractor in the notion of having some sect retain the doctrine of the apostles in its entirety.
He goes on to explain where the mark of apostolicity is to be found:
The mark of apostolicity then, is found in apostolicity of both membership and government. These two factors are, of course, only inadequately distinguished from one another. Even though this double sort of apostolicity is not obvious to all men, but only to those who are fairly well versed in history, it clearly fulfills all the requirements for a genuine mark.
Indeed, the mark of apostolicity is
found most clearly in the Church’s membership and government, and not doctrine.
Mario Derksen is not a member of this Church with the mark of apostolicity, nor
is his sect a part of this Church’s divine government.
Apostolicity
in doctrine, properly understood, means the Church will always retain the same
doctrines that it received from the Apostles.[23] Just
as the mark of apostolicity guarantees that there will always be a body of
Bishops (consisting of men who have mission and jurisdiction from the Pope),
the attribute of infallibility
guarantees that the Church will never impose a heresy upon the faithful to be
believed with the assent of faith. This means that the Pope is only infallible
when he is defining doctrine. If he is not defining doctrine, he is not
divinely protected from error, or even wreaking havoc in the Church, as certain
Popes throughout history, including the current one, have done.
That being said, apostolicity in
doctrine will survive, even in a severe doctrinal
crisis within the Church itself, such as the Arian heresy of the fourth
century. During the Arian crisis, the faith of many was shaken and a majority
of bishops knowingly, or unknowingly, drifted into heresy (about the doctrine
of the divinity of Christ, no less). Fr. Jurgens, who edited the book The Faith
of the Early Fathers, estimated that between 97 and 99 percent of the
episcopate (i.e., bishops in charge of diocese) fell into heresy.[24] Yet in spite of that, the Church never definitively taught heresy, and the true
Faith was persevered and continued to be professed by a majority of the laity.
Cardinal Newman, who studied the Arian
crisis in depth, explains that during that extraordinary crisis, “There was the
temporary suspense of the function of Ecclesia
Docens [the teaching Church – the hierarchy]. The body of bishops failed in
their confession of the faith. They
spoke variously, one against another; there was nothing, after Nicaea, of firm,
unvarying, consistent testimony, for nearly sixty years.[25]
This historical precedent serves
as a useful reminder for our own times, by showing what can and indeed has happened
in the true Church. When considering the
unspeakable torments that Christ endured during His Passion, we should expect
that during the Passion of the Mystical Body of Christ, God will permit the
Church to endure virtually all that it can endure, without any of His promises
being violated, the most obvious being her indefectibility. Therefore, in the present trial of the Church,
it is useful to consider what has
occurred in the Church, in order to know what can occur without the gates of hell prevailing against it.
And in spite of
the current crisis in the Church, all the dogmas remain on the books and no
erroneous “dogma” has been defined and proposed for belief. The Faith of the
Church remains the same today as it was during the pontificate of Pius XII. This
fact will help us persevere and remain in the indefectible Church with the mark
of apostolicity, and not defect into a heretical sect as Mr. Derksen has done.
Indeed, Mario Derksen is a notorious heretic who denies the Catholic Faith
including the Catholic dogma of indefectibility.
But let’s give Mr. Derksen a chance to prove us wrong by asking him, again, to answer this one simple question:
MR. DERKSEN, WHICH
BISHOPS IN THE WORLD TODAY HAVE
JURISDICTION?
[1]
The Church would also no longer be One, Holy or Catholic, but as we will see,
Apostolicity (formal apostolic succession) is the surest and most obvious sign
of Christ’s true Church.
[2]
The Protestants of yesterday, like the Sedevacantists of today, identified
indefectibility, not with the visible, hierarchical social unit of the Church
(to which the Promises of Christ apply), but rather with the visibility of
individual Christians who “profess the true faith.”
[3] De
Romano Pontifice, bk, 4, ch. 25.
[4] The Council of Trent, On the
Sacrament of Order, Canon VI.—“If any one saith, that, in the Catholic Church
there is not a hierarchy by divine ordination instituted, consisting of
bishops, priests, and ministers; let him be anathema.”
[5]
The translation used in the original was replaced by the Douay Rheims
translation.
[6] Christ’s Church, pp. 37-38 (emphasis added).
[7]
To be clear, the Teaching Body consists of the bishops who have been chosen and
given mission and jurisdiction
from a Pope.
[8] Joseph Wilhelm and Thomas Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, vol. I, 3rd
ed. (New York, Cincinnati, Chicago: Benzinger Bros., 1906), pp. 45-46.
[9]
The commentary on Romans 10:15 in the Douay Rheims Bible says: “’Unless they
be sent": Here is an evident proof against all new teachers, who have
all usurped to themselves the ministry without any lawful mission,
derived by succession from the Apostles, to whom Christ said, John 20. 21, ‘As
my Father hath sent me, I also send you.’”
[10] Herrmann,
Theologiæ Dogmaticæ Institutiones,
vol. I (Rome: Pacis Philippi Cuggiani, 1897), n. 282 (emphasis added).
[11] Christ’s Church, p. 152 (emphasis in
original).
[12]
Ibid., p. 153.
[13]
Berry, The Church of Christ, p. 78.
[14]
Pope Leo XIII: “just as it is necessary that the authority of Peter should be
perpetuated in the Roman Pontiff, so, by the fact that the bishops succeed the
Apostles, they inherit their ordinary power, and thus the episcopal order
necessarily belongs to the essential constitution of the Church.” (Satis
Cognitum, #14, 1896).
Van Noort: “there will always be in the Church a body of men invested
with that threefold power which the apostles enjoyed. This thesis is a dogma
of faith…” (Van Noort, Christ’s Church,
p. 37).
[15] Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), vol. I, p.
648 (emphasis added).
[16] Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, No. 42 (emphases added). For centuries
there were two general opinions regarding how a bishop receives his authority.
The minority opinion held that
authority was given to the bishop immediately by Christ at his ordination, and
that the Pope merely designated him to a particular diocese, or perhaps
fulfilled some condition required
before Christ would immediately and directly grant the jurisdiction. The majority opinion held that jurisdiction
comes to the bishop directly through
the Pope, and only indirectly by
Christ. In Mystici Corporis Christi,
Pius XII gave his judgment by explicitly teaching the majority opinion, i.e.,
that bishops receive their jurisdiction “directly
from the Supreme Pontiff.”
[17] Ad
Sinarum Gentem (October 4, 1957), No. 9.
[18]
Encyclical letter “Mystici Corporis,” June 29, 1943: AAS 35 (1943)
211-212.
[19] Encyclical
epistle "Ad Sinarum gentem," Oct. 7, 1954: AAS 47 (1955) 9.
[20] Pius XII, Ad
Apostolorum Principis, N. 39 - 40, June 29, 1958.
[21] Cajetan,
De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et
Concilii, ch. XIX.
[22] De
Romano Pontifice, lib. iv, cap xiv.
[23] Ibid.
[24]
“At one point in the Church’s history, only a few years before Gregory
[Nazianzen]’s present preaching (A.D. 380), perhaps the number of Catholic
bishops in possession of sees, as opposed to Arian bishops in possession of
sees, was no greater than something between 1% and 3% of the total. Had
doctrine been determined by popularity, today we should all be deniers of
Christ and opponents of the Spirit.” Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 2 (Collegeville, Minnesota:
Liturgical Press, 1979), p. 39.
[25]
Newman, Arians of the Fourth Century,
5th ed. (London: Pickerins & Co, 1883), p. 466.
