The Visible Unity of the Church

by Griff Ruby

This seems to be one of the least popular topics for all too many traditional Catholics. We do know that in the Catechism it is stated in clear and no uncertain terms that the Church is a hierarchical organization, whose leader is the Pope, and which we are morally obligated to be practicing members of. Furthermore, we know the Church is meant to be what is called "visible" which implies a clear and identifiable chain of command, such that every member of it knows precisely where he stands and to whom he answers directly. That chain of command requires in turn a clear pedigree that establishes authority and continuity clear back to the first Apostles, and thereby to Christ Himself.

Since this is a well-established and de fide doctrine, and we are what we are because of our loyalty to all Catholic doctrine, one would expect that this should be also a joyous doctrine to discuss, yet all too often it is not so with many of us who value doctrine most highly. So many traditional Catholics more or less faithfully attend the Masses of their traditional Catholic priests and bishops, and their traditional Catholic parishes and Mass centers, perhaps with some basic uncomfortableness surrounding the question of their standing with the Church. "I just go here for the Sacraments and teaching, because I know the first are unquestionably valid here, and the second is equally unquestionably solid and orthodox."

Common to all who experience this discomfort is the mistaken notion that the present Vatican institution is somehow still the "official Church," perhaps disease-ridden, perhaps demon possessed, certainly very poorly run, perhaps full of villains, conspirators, and heretics, or even led by the Antichrist, etc., but yet somehow still possessing some sort of authority which, if they did really possess it, is clearly being abused and directed toward ends which are not in conformity with the reasons for Catholic authority to exist in the first place.

Of course, it doesn't help that certain enemies of the Faith (and of the Church as well, as it turns out) have learned of this discomfort, either through first hand experience during a sojourn among us traditional Catholics, or second hand from those who experienced it first hand, and they use it to try and browbeat us into the Novus Ordo. All too many of us have simply drove the issue down through sheer force of will, "I am not going to think about that now!" But all that does is deepen our discomfort and provide Satan with all the more opportunity to scare us into the Novus Ordo if we become vulnerable.

However, if only the correct and doctrinaire application of this teaching, as it really applies during these trying times, were far better known, that nervousness and discomfort could be replaced with joy and serenity and peace of mind as we attend our traditional chapels. The good that can come from such knowledge far outweighs the risks. And there are some risks, not regarding the truth of what I have to say, but regarding its application. There is always the possibility that some unbalanced person might find some small part of this useful to their own agenda, and begin pushing the one small point at the expense of the Faith and everything else, as can be the case with any Catholic truth.

Let us start this with a short Biblical question: Does anyone know why it is that the geneologies of Jesus, as presented in Matthew and in Luke, differ? It is inconceivable that St. Joseph would have had two different fathers, one named Jacob (Matthew 1:16), and one named Heli (Luke 3:23). How to reconcile this bizarre thing? Even the first-century Church must have seen this (Matthew and Luke being both written before the destruction of the Temple), and yet they were not at all baffled by it.

There is a general consensus, which is also of great antiquity, that the geneology as given in Matthew is St. Joseph's ancestry whereas that given in Luke is St. Mary's ancestry. Now, there is a well known tradition that has it that Mary's father was named Joachim. Where does this fit into it all? It turns out that the meanings of the names Heli and Joachim are very similar, as are the meanings of the names Abram and Abraham, and of the names Sarai and Sarah. Heli means "lifted up," and Joachim means "The Lord (or Yahweh, as some would have it) has lifted up."

From that it becomes obvious what happened. Heli was his natural name, but in a time of some spiritual desperation he sought the Lord who then announced his role as the grandfather of the Messiah and the father of the new Eve, and with that promise gave him a new name, reflecting both his old name, and also the promise given to him by God which doubtless filled his soul with unspeakable joy, namely Joachim.

When Matthew and Luke were written, the geneological records of all of Israel were as yet still available in the Temple, and the chroniclers need only have consulted them. Now, geneological records needless to say would only bear a person's birth name, not any name they may take on (or which God would give them as in this case) later in life. It is just like how on one's birth certificate it still reads the same with the same original name even if a person legally changes their name.

With that, one can see the providential reason why it is that two such differing geneologies would be given. There is however behind that a spiritual significance which has bearing on the present issue, namely the visible unity of the Church. In order for Christ to be truly the King and Lord, He also needs to be a Son of David. It is interesting that throughout His short sojourn on earth, from the Incarnation to the Ascension, practically no one (other than Joseph and Mary and perhaps some few other close relatives) had any idea where this Man of Nazareth had come from. As the honest man Nathaniel asked, "what good could possibly come out of Nazareth?" (John 1:46-47)

Certainly, the signs and wonders He worked might have been enough to establish His Divine authority, and indeed those who followed Him in those days only knew of the signs and wonders and the phenomenal preaching He did, and that was enough for them to follow Him. But the fact still remains that He had to be fully legitimate and this in turn required that He be a Son of David, and that in fully two different senses. Needless to say, He had all the right pedigree.

The two senses required are that of the biological and the legal. Jesus does not come biologically from St. Joseph, so the fact that St. Joseph also descended from King David biologically means nothing with regards to Jesus being a Son of David, but legally, by adoption, He is a Son of David through Joseph, since such law can only pass from father to eldest (capable and surviving) son. So St. Joseph is the son of David through the kings of Israel, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, and so forth, all the kings of Israel, and this succession, kept all the way down to Joseph (although they hadn't reigned as kings for a number of generations), made the male heir of Joseph by legal right the King of Israel.

However, He must also be biologically descended from King David, but this does not require that the line be made up of first born sons who are kings. Since He gained nothing biological from Joseph nor from any earthly man, His biological heritage could only come through His mother, and as it turns out she too, is a descendant of King David, this time through another son of his named Nathan. With both of these things true, it truly can be said that Jesus is truly the Son of David, as prophesied. The signs and wonders He worked are an outgrowth of the legitimacy He possessed, even though almost no one knew it at the time, and He never once flashed His pedigree to gain sympathy or converts.

As we know, Jesus went on to establish a Church, and furthermore, that Church is His Mystical Body. Apostolic authority also requires a pedigree which in turn requires two separate ingredients in order to be the real expression of true Apostolic authority. In this case, the biological has been replaced by the Sacramental, which the biological nevertheless symbolized, but the legal is still legal and was expressed through the will of that Bishop appointed (by various means throughout history) to lead them all, namely the Pope.

Therefore, in order to have Apostolic authority and therefore be personally a representative of the visible unity of the Church, there are exactly two ingredients required, no more, no less. He must be validly consecrated as a bishop, and he must be a lawful, approved bishop of the Church. (One might say that he should also be Catholic in belief, but if he is not then his legitimacy would only be of some "potential" sort. The heretical bishops of the Arian and other crises regained their authority and legitimacy when and if they returned to the Catholic Faith.)

Let us start with Sacramental validity, as that is the easier one to follow. Really, the validity of the consecrations done by Archbishops Thuc and Lefebvre (other than Thuc's Palmar de Troya "consecrations"), and by Bishops de Castro-Meyer and Mendez, has never been seriously disputed, although some have attempted to cast doubt though having no real basis for any doubts. It is granted that Thuc's Palmar de Troya "consecrations" are in some doubt because Abp. Thuc himself later confessed to having a defect in intention at the time he went through with them. No such doubt, however, was ever expressed by Thuc regarding any of the later consecrations, most importantly and particularly his Catholic consecrations of des Lauriers, Carmona, and Zamora, and it is with these which we are principly concerned. And no valid doubts are raised regarding the Lefebvre/de Castro-Meyer bishops nor the Mendez bishop.

Have any challenges, even of the absurd sort, been raised about any of these unquestionably valid bishops? In the case of Abp. Lefebvre, some have alleged that his consecrator, Cd. Lienart was a Mason, thus casting into doubt the consecration of Lefebvre, but such claims hold no water. Even, let us suppose, Lienart really had been a Mason, and had, out of some Masonic villainy, withheld the proper intention to consecrate Lefebvre, the fact remains that his co-consecrators were clearly not Masons, and clearly doing their job at the time. Furthermore, the bishops consecrated by Lefebvre were also co-consecrated by de Castro-Meyer, of whom no such challenge has ever been raised.

Others have challenged Thuc's consecrations alleging that he must have been crazy or even evil, doing what he did. After all, he did consecrate several Old Catholics, a couple known criminals, and of course (maybe, but maybe not validly) the Palmar de Troya leaders. What gives here? It is fairly obvious from a close scrutiny of his life that he was in the worst of all possible conditions, personally and financially. He was old and tired, exiled and isolated from his native homeland and fellow Vietnamese, had no home of his own, and of course no money and no means of support. The Communists had killed all but one of his brothers, and then to his shock and horror, the new Vatican got on quite well with those very same Communists.

Clearly, he had to know that all was not well with the Vatican, and also he knew of his apostolic duty to continue the Church. What happened was that so many unscrupulous persons, along with (as the Marines put it) a few good men, came to him for Holy Orders and he altogether lacked the resources to check any of them out. They all approached him, seeming to be humble and sincere, and claiming the priesthood from one place or another. He does not appear to have known any of them well, even the Catholic ones. There is therefore no reason to doubt his sanity or intentions, as those who knew him in his last days all agree that he was cogent and clear in his mind.

Likewise, some similarly bogus charges have been raised by still others against Bp. Mendez. He too was old and his health was poor, but he had no need of money and was comfortably retired living in San Diego, California, quite some distance from the SSPV headquarters in New York or any others of their chapels. The only challenges to his sanity were raised by certain Novus Ordo members of his family who wanted custody of his body for burial, and who either conned or deceived some judge into going along with their plans. Really, the whole point and purpose of every one of those consecrations (and even some of the mistaken ones done by Thuc) was solely and strictly to preserve an unquestionably valid succession of Catholic bishops.

What we have therefore is four unquestioned successors to the apostles, two archbishops (Thuc & Lefebvre) and two bishops (de Castro-Meyer & Mendez), who among them managed to make eight indisputably Catholic and Apostolic bishops and from that eight, many more to continue the Church in a valid succession. So where really do such challenges to their validity come from? A simple glance at the sources of the supposed challenges would answer it all. It is the fruit of ongoing feuds between churchmen who have even stooped to obvious lies about their rivals in advancing their own cause, thus exhibiting the same exact human frailty which has so often occurred in the history of the Church, such as between Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:36-41).

On the other hand, the consecrations of Novus Ordo bishops most certainly are to be questioned as to their validity, on account of the seriously defective "form" used to do it now. Many of course remain valid as they were consecrated before the change in 1968, and it is possible, even likely that the defective new form may have still functioned in some number of cases, especially in the early days when older bishops who had already consecrated other bishops already went on to consecrate bishops using the new rite, but clearly meaning by it what they had meant when using the old and therefore achieving it.

But increasingly as the Novus Ordo hierarchy goes further and further into error, the concept and with it the real meaning of what it is to consecrate a bishop is becoming slurred, and the bishops (?) now being made, even if still individually valid in some few cases, nevertheless lack the formation to utter the new form with the old meaning, which is becoming altogether lost among the Novus Ordo. The trend is that in time they will make no real bishops, and the number of valid bishops in the Vatican organization will continue its precipitous fall all the way down to absolute zero.

By that time, the only valid (and lawful, as we will get to) bishops remaining will be those successors to Thuc, Lefebvre, de Castro-Meyer, and Mendez, who are even now expanding. It is true that they expand slowly as traditional clergy are carefully formed, trained, and qualified and then expected to prove themselves and their worth over some considerable time before being made bishops (and even after that some few, such as Bedingfeld, go bad), and so the expansion has been slow, but it has been careful and cautious, taking pains to avoid the disasters of Thuc, and for that matter, of the Vatican in its choices as well.

Now on to the legal. One must first understand the basic principle that Apostolic authority, jurisdiction, "faculties," lawfulness, the capacity to convey saving grace, and membership in the Mystical Body of Christ, specifically that of "the Church" proper, as distinguished from "the Faithful," that is to say, the hierarchical members of the Church. It is doctrinally impossible for anyone to possess any one of these traits and not possess the others, and it is similarly impossible for anyone to lack any one of these traits and not lack all others.

Let us examine briefly one possible objection one might raise regarding that last: What about the case of a person dying and the only priest available is an Eastern Orthodox or Old Catholic schismatic priest, or one suspended or even excommunicated, validly ordained but not lawful. How can that priest convey any grace through the sacraments of Viaticum, Penance, and Extreme Unction which he may give to the dying person if he lacks a hierarchical membership in the Mystical body of Christ? But this is easy to dismiss. The validity of his ordination makes it possible, and Canon Law of the Church explicitly grants that priest a kind of momentary jurisdiction or "faculties" to perform that one act. To that severely limited extent and for that severely limited duration, he is momentarily granted by Canon Law participation in all of those traits.

This comes down to the fact that the Church is always quite free to recognize any cleric on any basis, temporary or permanent, locally or globally, that it sees fit, and such clerics, thus recognized, gain for the duration of that recognition, lawful jurisdiction and faculties.

None of this of course is to be confused with thinking that the schismatic or suspended or excommunicated cleric is right in his own soul with God (though there is room to hope that the good deed he does may inspire God to grant him repentance someday), but in fact in the same category as any cleric who is living in sin but still accepted as a lawful member of the Church hierarchy. His soul is in dire condition, but his Sacraments are valid and lawful and convey a grace, which he himself is not participating in, sort of like a spoon carrying food but not tasting it.

Apart from these isolated and brief exceptions of course, the Church hierarchical ordinarily consists of the pope, those patriarchs, cardinals, bishops, monsignors and priests and other lesser clerics (deacons, subdeacons, abbots, abbesses, monks, nuns) who really do have a place on the organizational chart, so to speak.

The doctrine that "there is no salvation outside the Church" really means that there is no salvation except that which comes about through, or as a result of, the Church. This shows the terrible mistake Fr. Feeney made in interpreting this teaching. He imagined that "no salvation outside the Church" means that only card carrying members of the Church could possibly get to Heaven. Of course, the Catholic doctrines of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire show the falsity of that interpretation. But those who are baptized by Blood or Desire are united to the soul of the Church and in a state of grace, such that they can attain Heaven, despite their being outside the visible body. In their cases, salvation has come to them through the Church, whether they realize it consciously or not, and they most certainly have not obtained their salvation from anyplace "outside the Church."

In all this context, it is important to realize the real nature of the astonishing statement in the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium that the Mystical Body of Christ "subsists in" a "Catholic Church" but is clearly and explicitly mentioned to differ in boundaries, as brought out in the previous article in this series.

It is instructive to start the discussion of what that Vatican II text said with the heretical understanding of that statement used throughout the remainder of Vatican II and which doctrinally tainted it with error. By that statement, what they meant was that other religions and religious organizations that do not answer to them are now to be considered sources or channels of God's grace. The moment they said that, they provided the basis for all of that false ecumenism (which is to be distinguished from true ecumenism which could always be allowed and really is merely a matter of current and changeable discipline) which enables Catholics to pray non-Catholic prayers with non-Catholics in their places of non-Catholic worship.

As long as all other religious groups and organizations are totally on the outside, it is obviously proper to protect the Catholic Faithful from them all by limiting their involvement with these to the minimum demands of charity and justice. By attempting to establish all of these other religious groups and organizations as portions of the Mystical Body of Christ, this lays the basic philosophical foundation for any and all involvement with these other religious groups and organizations since they are now all parts of some all-embracing "higher truth."

It is one thing to permit a Catholic to attend, passively, a Jewish or Moslem service where there is some clear need for their presence there, perhaps due to societal or familial or employment reasons, and to be personal friends with them as decent fellow human beings worthy of respect, or even to engage in projects of mutual concern. All of that is allowable. It is however quite another thing to encourage all Catholics to take an active part in such services and attempt to gain from them some deepening of their own spiritual interior life and edification and recognize their members as full brothers in the Lord and their religions as additional truth. This latter can never be validly done and the very attempt would be merely a deception to the members of these religions, to say nothing of what a deception it is to the unhappy Catholics who follow it.

The important point to draw from this is the one aspect of that which naturally follows from the Lumen Gentium text and is literally stated by it, namely that other religious groups and organizations who do not answer to the Vatican hierarchy are nevertheless to be regarded as means of salvation, that is, there most certainly is salvation obtainable from outside their organization.

There is exactly and only one way for such an astonishing statement to be reconciled with the dogmas of the Church, namely regarding there being no salvation outside the Church, and the absolute identity of the Catholic Church with the Mystical Body of Christ. Non-Catholics cannot be part of the Church hierarchical (other than momentarily in an emergency and even then in only the severely limited sense as illustrated above) on account of their religious error, but Catholics, adhering to the entirety of the Magisterium, most certainly can be the lawful recipients of such apostolic authority on an ongoing and habitual basis. If there is no element of heresy, but only that of pure schism, such clerics, had they existed, would have been granted by that declaration jurisdiction and faculties and apostolic authority.

There were in fact none such; every cleric who had been on the outside on the morning of November 21, 1964 was out, not merely for reasons of schism, but also of heresy as well. However, the ability for such bishops to exist had been legalized, providing only that they came from bishops recognized as such by the Church prior to this significant change. This is a major organizational change and has a great many far-reaching consequences, juridically speaking.

First and foremost, they (bishops, cardinals, and pope) have promulgated and defined into existence another "Catholic Church" such that where there was only one real Catholic Church, namely that which is identified with the Mystical Body of Christ, there are now two distinct "Catholic Churches," one of which is still identified with the Mystical Body of Christ (as mandated by de fide doctrine), and the other of which is a distinct body which "subsists in" that real Catholic Church, which is to say that there is an overlap, such that some clerics may indeed be members of both the real Catholic Church and also this new "Catholic Church" they have defined into existence, but anyone of them can be members of either one alone and not of the other. They have also officially made themselves members of this new organization, and taking new offices, have therefore at least partially resigned from their old offices.

Such mass resignation is not in itself a defection of the Church, since many retained their fully Catholic belief system and did their level best to promulgate only that Faith. Some months ago in a private correspondence, I had spoken of the promulgation of Lumen Gentium itself as a "defection," and my correspondent pointed out that such a total defection is intrinsically impossible for the Church to do in its entirety (and all of them evidently did accept Lumen Gentium, many willingly and a few only grudgingly) else it really would be a defection of the entire Church which is doctrinally impossible. On further reflection I realized that what I am speaking about is not a mass defection but a mass resignation.

To illustrate the difference, defection would be a case where some bishop becomes a heretic and teaches and mandates error and evil and has to be disobeyed and ultimately removed and replaced by the Pope. Such an erring bishop of course forfeits his office, his "See," if you will, and loses all apostolic authority and ceases to be a lawful bishop in the Church. Resignation, once given and accepted, merely means that So-and-so is no longer the bishop of the diocese of Such-and-such, and has relinquished his apostolic authority over that area where he previously exercised it.

He no longer has a diocese (although common practice which goes back quite some way, but not all the way to the beginning, is that he is then assigned some "titular" diocese, a once thriving but now extinct diocese consisting of what amounts to a single geometric point containing nothing and no one), but he is still a lawful bishop of the Church, and he can be permitted by any bishop of any diocese to enter that diocese and help out, for example by blessing altars or administering the Sacrament of Confirmation, or even participating in (or outright doing) priestly ordinations and episcopal consecrations. His ability to do these things is constrained only by the decisions and rulings of those bishops who have not resigned and who therefore still hold real dioceses over which they exercise authority.

The joint mutual mass resignation performed by Lumen Gentium removed any and all from the position of being able to constrain any fellow bishop from engaging in any ministries, and furthermore, since he is no longer obliged to answer to the Vatican hierarchy in order to function as a lawful Catholic bishop possessing apostolic authority, he may even do these things without their approval. Where before, such Vatican established policies bound all hierarchical members of the Church, now, with Lumen Gentium on the books, such policies only bind such activities of the clergy as take place within the scope of the Vatican organization itself (the newly defined-into-existence "Catholic Church" which subsists in, and is itself subsisted in by, the real Catholic Church), but they no longer bind all of their Apostolic and ecclesiastical activities.

So when this happened, all the bishops were still legitimate bishops of the Church, and the Church had not defected. But with the former clear chain of command thus put out of focus and everyone becoming accountable to everyone else (this is otherwise known as collegiality) as a group and no one in particular especially, many were free to enter heresy. In point of fact, "everyone" was free to enter heresy, even their leader, no longer really a Pope but merely a sort of "president," but the promises of God here kick in and have guaranteed that some few would (and some few did) remain faithful and continue the Church. Bp. de Castro-Meyer is probably the cleanest and clearest (and most long-lived) example of this.

One big ramification of all of this is that bishops no longer could exercise exclusive authority over their dioceses. The fact that we never had such a large wholesale departure from the Faith on the part of almost every bishop, anytime after the Arian crisis was resolved and clear until Vatican II is not merely some historical accident. Rather, after the Arian crisis, safeguards were set up, making such a large-scale defection no longer possible.

The principal safeguard is something which at first seems the exact opposite of common sense, but in fact deductively follows from the doctrines of the Church and the promises of God that the Church shall ever endure clear to the end and never defect and also be universal ("Catholic"), thus extending to the whole inhabited earth. That safeguard is the fact that some time soon after the resolution of the Arian crisis (this may well be itself what resolved it), the nature of a bishop's relationship to his diocese was modified and strengthened.

Where before a bishop was simply assigned to some territory (a policy itself which the first Council of Nicea established for the first time), but his authority did not extend to regulating the activities of any other bishops assigned to any other territories, but who choose to act within the boundaries of his diocese, now (at that time) the policy changed to that of a bishop possessing exclusive authority over his diocese, such that any other bishop, or their clerics, may enter in his diocese and perform apostolic duties there only with his explicit permission.

At the height of the Arian crisis, when nearly every bishop of the Church (and one could validly argue whether such bishops were really a part of the Church at all) was actually a heretic, the heretic bishops all objected to the presence of the Athanasian clergy (those who upheld the doctrine of the Trinity) on account of their doctrine, but none of them ever said "get out of my diocese; you have no faculties here!" That is in turn because none of them possessed that kind of exclusive authority over their dioceses, the concept hadn't been invented yet. This enabled Bp. Athanasius or his clergy to enter any diocese with impunity and see to the Catholic needs of that diocese.

Afterwords, at the end of that crisis, the rules changed to grant each bishop exclusive authority over his diocese, and the whole cycle of incardinations, faculties, etc. was set up at last. After this change, and clear until Vatican II, if per impossible some number of bishops became heretics and forbid the teaching or practice of the Catholic Faith in their dioceses, then the "Athanasiuses" of their day would no longer have the authority to enter or send any of their clerics into that diocese, and the Faithful there in such dioceses where the bishop is heretical would have no Church.

This sounds like a dangerous arrangement. By all human reasoning, one would expect that allowing a plurality of bishops to service any diocese, as had been the case during the opening centuries of the Church, would enable any and all to have access to the hierarchical Church and to those with apostolic authority and integrity, where having everything necessarily channeled through one specific bishop would make them vulnerable to the whim of that bishop, thus posing a serious danger to the faith. It would seem like it is an example of the sort of accountability doctors gain from the fact that a patient always has a right to a "second opinion" from another doctor. Secular organizations may indeed function best this way.

But in the actual practice of the Church it doesn't work that way. The Church exists everywhere (even if only theoretically as for example in the case of the American continents prior to their discovery and exploration in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries), and this implies the presence of the authority of a bishop, however thinly he may be spread out and how rarely he may actually be able to visit a particular location. This is part of what it means for the Church to be "Catholic," that is to say "universal." It applies everywhere and exercises legitimate authority everywhere.

If (for example) ten bishops each and all had the authority to act within a particular diocese, then the Catholicicity of the Church only requires that at least one of them will really function as a Catholic bishop there. It means that any up to nine of them could vanish into error and forbid the teaching and practice of the Catholic Faith, so long as at least one can still come in and convey the will of the Church to that diocese.

If only one bishop has the authority to function within a specific diocese, then in order for the Church to extend to his diocese (which it necessarily must as God promised that the Church would be universal or "Catholic") he must permit the teaching and practice of the Faith, and provide (to what extent his health and circumstances allow) for the spiritual needs of the Faithful in his diocese. He may still be weak, personally corrupt, and even sympathetic to heretics and heresies, but the promises of God require that he must permit truly orthodox and valid Catholic clergy to operate within his diocese, and at least where necessary, engage in orthodox and valid Catholic activities himself personally.

So such a stark arrangement, rather than cause spiritual danger from the possible failings of individual men, instead brings the promises of God (and with them the Providential movement of God Himself wherever needed to sustain His promises) into the loop. It keeps every bishop "honest," so to speak. And this is why we do not have a crisis like that of the Arian crisis from then until Vatican II.

At Vatican II, all the bishops resigned from their offices, but remained (for the moment at least) lawful Catholic bishops. Whatever territorial assignments they received were taken over by the new so-called "Catholic Church" which subsists in the real Catholic Church but is not it. Since it is no longer required for one to be a member of the Vatican organization in order to be part of the Church, any bishop is therefore free to operate outside its scope and to that extent are not subject to its territorial assignments. Ergo they are free to function as Catholic bishops, exercising apostolic authority, in any location.

So now, once again we have the same situation we had before and during the Arian crisis. Once again, the promises of God no longer keep all the bishops "honest" because after all, any other bishops can (and Providentially always will) stand in the gap. Therefore, the vast majority of bishops can vanish into error exactly as they did back then, and such is what we see has happened. The present problem is not merely of a bad or weak (or whatever) pope, but of nearly every bishop all around the world having decided to become practicing heretics, something that has not happened since the Arian crisis.

There is an even bigger ramification regarding the supreme bishop, the Pope. If the organization the man runs is no longer the actual Catholic Church, and if he and they have formally given consent (and what could be more formal than jointly declaring such a thing in an ecumenical Council?) to valid and lawful and grace-conveying Apostolic activities on an ongoing basis outside the scope of their selfsame organization, then the jurisdiction of the man at the top of the Vatican organization no longer extends (even remotely) over all Catholics, but only over such as remain (and entirely function) only within his organization.

Part of what makes a pope a pope is that he has jurisdiction over the whole Church, not merely some portion of it. As a result of Lumen Gentium, the Vatican leader's rank therefore becomes something roughly on par with the rank of some Archbishop or perhaps a Patriarch of some particular Rite of the Church. As such he is capable of exercising the prerogatives appropriate for such, but no more than that. Apart from any further losses of authority resulting from heresy, this would be John Paul II's true rank and standing.

Another result from one's not possessing jurisdiction over the whole Church is that they therefore lack the authority to teach or bind the entire Church to any belief. Papal infallibility, in the strict sense, depends upon a statement by a pope being 1) about Faith and/or Morals, 2) officially promulgated by virtue of his supreme authority as pope, and 3) that its teachings are binding on all Catholics. Without the jurisdiction to teach and bind all Catholics to a belief, he cannot invoke the charism of infallibility, so in fact infallibility cannot apply to him at all.

It is for that reason (and no other) that this author would have to state that the Vatican leader, lacking universal jurisdiction, and therefore lacking with that the authority to teach the entire Church, and with that, the charism of infallibility, cannot be regarded as a pope, at least in the strictly Petrine sense of what the word "pope" means. One might allow that the man might rightly be referred to as "pope" in a common or colloquial manner, or out of respect for his person, or even in a ceremonial sense (e. g. "The Pope opened the Jubilee doors this morning…") because his position, though less than that of "pope" proper, is nevertheless still the highest rank held by any living individual.

This exposes the frequent mistake made by certain Catholics of the "sedevacantist" persuasion that, since the man has taught and behaved in manners impossible for any pope to teach and behave, then not only is he not pope (that much is correct), but in fact some sort of "antichrist" with whom no knowledgeable Catholic can have any fellowship. From this follows the separatism and basic schismatic behaviors that have scandalized many of the traditional Catholic community against the sedevacantist opinion.

This also shows the true sequence of cause and effect in the current crisis. People who think of a valid and lawful and true pope somehow resisting the charism of infallibility and teaching error, perhaps due to some supernaturally evil power, have got it all backwards, regardless of whether they opine that he, as a result of whatever particular heresies he has seen fit to entertain, has therefore lost his papacy, or if they think he may somehow retain it. Rather, it is because he is not pope that he is able to teach error, since the charism of infallibility does not apply to him at all.

It is Vatican II itself which declares that the Vatican leader is no pope, and so long as Vatican II remains as their sacred cow which they refuse to even think about reversing, the damage and continual drifting into error on the part of the Vatican institution will necessarily continue, and that despite the best intentions of even a great many people. There can be no pope until such time as the Church should formally revoke Vatican II. The Papal office is closed. Not occupied, but closed nonetheless.

So, just as Vigilius could not be pope so long as his predecessor Pope Silverius was still alive and not having resigned, the current Vatican leader today also cannot be pope so long as Vatican II remains on the books. Just like the current Vatican leadership, Vigilius did not lose the papacy because he erred, but erred because he lacked the papacy.

This, by the way, shows why it is that all attempts to obtain a pope, whether with a conclave of Vatican cardinals or a conclave of concerned and doctrinaire Catholics, have consistently failed. Granted a good many of them have been unbalanced individuals who have no business being in charge of a worm wrestling ranch let alone the Church, but the fact remains that even the best and noblest have all consistently failed. There are "popes" who have allowed themselves to begin "reigning" despite the fact they are not even valid bishops (and that's the best of them!), and it all goes downhill from there, all in all, a pretty sordid lot.

In his book, I Am With You Always, Michael Davies makes the interesting and significant philosophical distinction between the a priori line of reasoning used by the Novus Ordo to "prove" that all the new changes and teachings must somehow be acceptable and within the pale, and the objective approach used by traditional Catholics to demonstrate that the new changes and teachings are unacceptable and totally outside the pale. Objectively, the new "mass" is a sinful, evil parody of the Catholic Mass, a grave and unacceptable sacrilege, and something that is out of the question for authentic Catholics. But by the a priori approach, "the pope" promulgated the new "mass" and so it must not be sinful or evil or a sacrilege and entirely acceptable for authentic Catholics. All he could do to attempt a reconciliation between the conflicting positions is claim that the new "mass" is merely "less good, but still any good at all" than the Catholic Mass.

What we have here with my theory is an a priori line of reasoning that shows that the current Vatican institution lacks the ecclesiastical authority to promulgate any new sacraments or sacramental forms. The number one "defense" of the Vatican innovations, namely the a priori argument that "since the Pope approved it, it must be acceptable" has just been whisked clean away. As shown in this essay, a priori, the Vatican leadership is not pope (thanks to Vatican II), and so therefore his approval of any innovation proves nothing. And this finding matches the unquestioned results of the objective line of reasoning, namely "the Church has already taught that 'thus and so' is invalid or impermissible, and yet the same exact 'thus and so' has been imposed on us by the present Vatican."

The most important point, and that which has direct bearing on the issue at hand is the status of any valid and Catholic bishops whose orders stem from the four heroes (Thuc through des Lauriers or Carmona or Zamora, Lefebvre, de Castro-Meyer, and Mendez). They are lawful and licit bishops due to the "law" of Vatican II, having come from legitimate bishops of the Church and continued through an untainted succession. Where before such a thing as consecrating bishops without papal permission would have been considered as possibly being schismatic, with Vatican II on the books it becomes utterly legal and bearing apostolic authority, providing that it is done expressly for Catholic purposes. Prior to Vatican II, no Catholic purpose could have been carried out by such consecrations under any but the very most extraoridnary and limited circumstances.

The traditional bishops therefore possess Apostolic authority and are therefore the visible leadership of the Church today. It is only the well-advised humility of the current traditional bishops of the Church that has prevented them from asserting this fact. In the earlier days of the crisis, some few bishops recognized their legitimacy but from there wrongfully concluded that they somehow had authority over the others, or else over some territorial "diocese" which had not been assigned to them. Their authority is however non-exclusive, such that none can forbid or limit another in their apostolic activities except by mutual consent.

As one can see, their legitimacy is not a simple one to explain, most certainly not one which one can just flash like an ID card. Like Christ of old, they just seem to have come out of nowhere, born of humble circumstances and seemingly lacking any valid and lawful Apostolic pedigree (though they in fact have one in every sense). What's more, they have before them the daunting task of proving themselves worthy to lead the Church, and this they must do, as Christ did, without the ease and benefit of an established good name. Can anything good come from Nazareth, or for that matter from "unapproved" episcopal consecrations? But Jesus did not come from Nazareth but from Bethlehem, and the Catholic clergy of today don't come from unapproved episcopal consecrations but from Conciliarly approved episcopal consecrations.

So, we may indeed rejoice, because God has not abandoned us and the Church, the institutional Church, is still with us, in the person of the authentically Catholic traditional bishops and priests, and every bit as safe from doctrinal error as the Church ever was. That is the visible unity of the Church today, and any alternate "visible unity," for example that of the present Vatican institution, is of no real relevance to integral and practicing Catholics.

Years from now, when the authentically Catholic clergy have proven themselves worthy, and the Vatican merely continued wandering off further into error, many will finally say to the traditional clergy of the Church, "Look, I am ready to believe you since you are obviously sincere and validly ordained/consecrated and take your pastoral responsibilities very seriously and responsibly, but still where is your Apostolic authority coming from; how can I believe that Christ sent you and that you did not merely send yourselves?" and it is at this point that such an argument as mine will at last provide the needed explanation.

In the meantime, "the big picture," as presented here does seem for all too many a difficult concept to grasp, and if people do not grasp it all, then perhaps the providential time for the solution to arrive has not as yet come. But really the "solution" has been with us underfoot all the time, and has only to be recognized for what it is to be joyfully embraced.

Between this and the preceding articles, I think I have given a clear enough presentation of my theory regarding the state of the Catholic Church since Vatican II that any sincere and honest inquirer should be able to see what it is that I am saying. Already, even many who have not understood it like it because the conclusion is what they intuitively know to be right: The Indult is OK; the SSPX is OK; the Sedevacantist clergy and other "independents" are OK, and most of all, the Novus Ordo is not OK. Real and authentic Catholicism is the same as it always has been and ever shall be, and is our absolute right and duty to believe, live, and practice before our Creator.

What all of this establishes is the fact that the Vatican institution in its present Vatican II-holding form IS NOT the institutional Church. It is the traditional bishops, priests, clergy, and religious, all of you taken together, you who ARE the institutional Church. The Apostolic duty of converting the whole world has fallen on your shoulders. It is you all who have truly followed the example of the Good Shepherd who tends the sheep and does not flee when the wolf comes, and have borne your Apostolic duties responsibly. Do not faint or shrink from the size of the task set before you, daunting as it is. You are not alone. First and foremost, God is on your side, and all the holy angels and saints. Furthermore, you also have each other. Stop chewing each other apart. The questions that alienate some of you from others will not be solved by hurling attacks at each other over the wall, but by sitting together in one room, in a Council, and discussing it in all detail, just as the Church has always solved Her problems.

However, it is more than a satisfactory conclusion that is needed. Proof is needed. Let us take a look at what proof is available. As I always like to say about it, "try it on for size," just like a garment. If it fits, wear it. A good theory, in order to be worthy of the name, must not only explain the facts already before us, but should also be able to help us accurately anticipate the facts we don't yet have before us, whether they already exist but simply have not been called to our attention, or they don't as yet exist but may in the future.

Let us start with the present known facts before us. If the Pope, bishops, and cardinals could get together and define a new organization into existence and themselves as members, and also define this organization has not necessarily containing the entire Catholic Church, nor necessarily being contained by it, then what follows? They all have new offices in addition to the old offices they are free to retain on an individual basis.

If every single prelate of the Church were to entirely abandon their former ecclesiastical office in favor of their new club office, I think one could argue that such would constitute a total defection of the Church, which we know to be doctrinally impossible. But if the same things were to be done and only some (even a large proportion, but by no means all) prelates abandoned their ecclesiastical posts, well that sort of thing has always been possible in the will of God. It was therefore inevitable that there would be at least one bishop (and there are several, de Castro-Meyer and Marcel Lefebvre among them) who would more or less ignore his new club office and continue his lawful duties within his former post.

Now, take a look at what has been newly created. A merely human organization, which men decreed into existence, and which men have the power to decree back out of existence. Can any merely human organization claim religious infallibility? No, only the divinely established Church can do that. So what therefore can we expect of any merely human organization, no matter how sincere or well intentioned, or even doctrinaire its charter members may be? Religious error is bound to crop up eventually. For error not to show up under such circumstances would be the totally extraordinary and unexpected chain of events.

Ergo, we must expect religious error from their new Vatican organization. Do we see it? Of course we do! They teach (at least by example) and practice communicatio in sacris with pagan religions and promulgate and approve invalid liturgies and "sacraments." If it were still somehow the Church, then surely long before now the "pendulum" would have started swinging back to normalcy. People who make the mistake of thinking the Vatican to still be the Church must believe that "it can't possibly get any worse," but my theory predicts that it can and will get worse, and that it may do so despite the good intentions of many, and even the widespread recognition of the fact that Vatican II has merely ushered in "the smoke of Satan" into their "church."

But it doesn't stop there. My theory also requires that some prelates of the Church would remain faithful and continue to see to the needs to all the flock. Conveniently, there even appears the jurisdiction to do so outside the confines of their former offices, in order that all the faithful may be administered to lawfully (even though some may need to travel heroic distances). So what have these faithful prelates in fact done? They have seen to the needs of the flock all over the world. Recall Abp. Lefebvre's world travels to ordain priests, consecrate altars, and confirm young Catholics.

Furthermore, unless the Vatican II document should be revoked in a timely fashion, these lawful bishops must not only be lawfully able to consecrate their successors (which they are), but must also actually do so. Have they? Oh yes they have, so the Church continues as promised by God. Have these faithful bishops and their successors kept the Faith? In order for the Church to continue, they must, and that must be so despite the fact that some of them (particularly some of those in the Thuc succession) have been ill-trained or even rather shady characters. Have they? Study them all and what you find is that, while some mistakes about non-religious ideas (geocentrism, six-day creationism, conspiracy theories, anti-semitism, prophetic speculation) and even minor religious disciplines (such as Bishops Musey and Vezelis imagining they have full regular and territorial jurisdiction over West and East portions of the United States), but absolutely never any religious or doctrinal error.

What keeps the traditional clergy faithful and correct doctrinally speaking is God's promises to His Church. If these were to err, then all will have erred and the Church would have entirely defected and all of God's promises would have been rendered null and void. The authentic traditional clergy therefore will not err, even if one or another (such as Bedingfeld) should fall from among them, even as Judas Iscariot fell from among the other twelve disciples.

And yet there is another prediction my theory makes, and that is that, despite the vacancy of the papal office, because the office has been closed by Vatican II, any and all attempts to fill it while Vatican II remains on the books must necessarily fail. Is that not what we have seen? Is there any real papacy in any of the "Pope" Gregories XVII's or Hadrian VII or Peter II or Michael I or Pius XIII or John Paul II? Therefore I do not expect the successor of John Paul II (should the Vatican elect one at all) to be a pope, but at least one can pray that he might be solidly orthodox enough to work towards the removal of Vatican II and perhaps one day finally step into the papal office.

Another somewhat more interesting and surprising prediction my theory makes is the rise of the Indult. Since the real Catholic Church does after all "subsist in" their Vatican institution, there must appear some mechanism permitting authentic Catholicism to exist somewhere within their organization, and as the last few of the "foot-draggers" were being pushed out or forced into accepting the new order, the Indult appears, giving still others the prerogative of functioning as real Catholics. For this reason, not even Protocols 512 and 1411 could shut it down, but the Indult continues to expand.

Again, is this not what we have seen happen? There is an indult and nothing seems able to kill it, no matter how many totally apostate clerics desire its termination. Therefore, my theory is fully in accord with the known and established facts. What else need it conform to?

Let us look at two possibilities. One of them is the doctrines of the Church. The doctrines of the Church however place no obstacle against my theory, as it is in full accord with each and every known doctrine of the Church, and especially those regarding the nature of the Church itself. Get any good and solid catechism or doctrinal textbook on the Church, and see its description of the Church. The Vatican in no way matches that description, but the traditional clergy fit it in all details, other than those details that are not doctrinal in nature. Even more interesting, each and every specific teaching of ecclesiology can be readily mapped to some aspect of the traditional Catholic community today or the present situation.

What would be a nondoctrinal difference? Is the Church currently centered in Rome these days? Obviously not. But all that doctrine can say is that Rome is the proper and ideal center of Catholic authority, not that it must always rule from that point, as for example when it was temporarily relocated in Avignon, or back in the beginning when it was in Jerusalem, and then in Antioch. Doctrine establishes the office of the Pope, but does not require that it be continually filled at all times. Neither does any known doctrine place any time limit on how long an interregnum may last. People say "gee this sure is a long interregnum, the longest ever by far!" Yeah, so?

Indeed, without at least some theory such as mine, one would have to regard the claims of the Church to have been proven false. As long as one mistakenly identifies the visible Church with the Vatican institution, they are either logically constrained to accept a Church which has defected, or else whose "rightness" makes absolutely no guarantee of fidelity to any specific and Divine standard. Can the promises of God to His Church be limited by the mere bad will on the part of certain highly placed men? If so, then the promises mean nothing and can be considered null and void. If not, then those promises clearly do not apply to the Vatican leadership, and the only way for that to happen is for them to no longer be the Church, and for someone else (the traditional Catholic community) to be the Church instead.

The other possibility for testing my theory would be to watch the future. For the most interesting feature of any true theory is its ability to predict something about future events. Do I know the future? No mortal does, but with the help of my theory, I can see that there are only a very few directions events may take in the future, and necessarily one or another of these very few must take place. There are a number of things that cannot ever happen, or if they ever did they would invalidate my theory.

One of the most stark predictions my theory makes is that the Vatican institution cannot make any significant return to Catholicism without at least calling Vatican II into serious question, to the point that they could actually consider revoking it altogether. This will hold true even if all the known villains are ousted from it and everyone allowed to remain is indisputably well-intentioned and orthodox. Even the occasional "good move" (which does happen from time to time) will be more than counterbalanced with some other move yet further away from the Faith. For example, yes, John Paul II did put an end to the idea of there being priestesses in 1994, but at just about the same time he formally allowed for there to be altar girls. Yes, the Campos priests (and bishop) were finally recognized as the lawful clergy they have always been, and without any religious concessions from their part, but at just about the same time frame the notorious Assisi scandal was repeated, and an invalid schismatic eastern "liturgy" granted official acceptance as being acceptable for "Catholics" (at least of the Novus Ordo variety).

Part and parcel with that previous prediction is a much shorter term prediction which I can put on record now and within a very few years we may all see it happen. The Vatican institution has spoken in recent years about introducing yet another revision to their "liturgy." Some people look to that with hope that it may actually be some small but real step back towards the Catholic Mass. It is said, for example that the new vernaculars will return to saying "for you and for many" where their present edition says "for you and for all." Even if this specific (and yes, quite commendable) fix is made, my theory predicts that other damage will be introduced which is at least as serious as all the previous damage which this new edition may well fix.

Another stark prediction my theory makes is that the traditional Catholic orders, such as the SSPX, the SSPV, the CMRI, the Trento priests of Mexico, the Campos priests, and so forth will all remain totally orthodox and correct in their Catholic teaching. This will remain so even if bad people should somehow rise to positions of authority in these organizations. Yet another prediction is the continued failure of any attempts to create a pope, even on the part of the Vatican institution, until Vatican II is revoked.

My theory foresees only four possible scenarios for recovery and restoration of the full strength and structure of the Church. One would be that the Vatican organization indeed finally recognizes what a disaster Vatican II was and they decide to repudiate it, together with all that followed from it. Another scenario would be that the Vatican organization continues to keep a terrible death grip on Vatican II out of sheer perversity, and that they continue to decline while the authentic traditional Catholic orders will continue to rise, eventually begin to recognize each other, and make some (eventually successful) attempt at reconciliation with each other.

The third scenario would be some major disaster, such as the destruction of Vatican City together with the exile or slaughter of all its inhabitants, thus rendering moot all questions as to who is "accepted" and who is not and whether there is or is not a pope, since there would be no one left to do the "accepting," and no one even pretending to the papal chair. The last scenario would be the final End of the World as scripturally prophesied. It is interesting to note that the first three scenarios do not entail the End of the World, so if the World doesn't end in, say, the next 50 years or so, one of the first three scenarios I have described will take place instead.

A lot a traditional Catholics put the present situation down to the Final Apostasy, as if that could explain anything. If indeed this period is the Final Apostasy, then my theory explains how it is that God's promises have held through and applied even in this period of the Final Apostasy. There is after all no basis for claiming that God's promises to His Church would be suspended even during the Final Apostasy, as the Church goes "underground" and authentic believers become few. And if this isn't the Final Apostasy (as I opine), then my theory explains just what it is that is happening.

If somebody can really understand all this and see the logical outworking of my theory and how well it fits the known facts, but still have some questions or problems with it, please by all means get word to me about this. Thank you.