Is the Catholic Church still apostolic?
Note, April 2026: Aspects of my thought on this topic have developed since the time of writing. I am leaving this article as written; please see here for my current thoughts:
Some of the arguments made in the original article no longer seem so certain to me – and certain alternatives which I rejected also seem to have a greater degree of probability. Nonetheless, I believe that there is still “apologetic value” in explaining why an extended vacancy since Paul VI is compatible with the continuity of the hierarchy in act, even today.
Here are the parts of the series so far:
Introduction
Updated September 2026 to reflect some of these developments mentioned above.
“Sedevacantism means that there are no bishops left in the world. That’s a defected Church that is no longer apostolic. That shows sedevacantism is false.”
Such is the basic thrust of one of the most common objections to the position which holds that the Holy See has been vacant since the time of Paul VI. This article is the first in a series that attempts to answer this objection on its own terms.
At the time that this article was first written, I was of the firm view that there must always remain formal successors of the Apostles living in the world, and that – unlike for the papacy – it was not possible for even an “accidental interruption” in this succession. I understood this to be an essential part of the property (viz. not the note) of apostolicity, and a matter of faith. Because I held it to be a matter of faith, I also considered it possible (and necessary) to affirm the existence of such formal successors, even during our extended vacancy of the Holy See. I held that the only proof that was required was that of the point of doctrine – not of the individual successors in question.
As St Anselm wrote, “I believe in order to know”; only after the certainty of the point of doctrine was established was there any sense in discussing how such successors could survive, who they might be, and where they might be found – and even then, such questions were merely legitimate and interesting, rather than essential.
In this series, I argue that an extended vacancy of the Holy See does not entail the extinction of the Church’s hierarchy and formal apostolic succession. However, as indicated above, there are some points which now seem less certain to me. For example:
That an accidental break is indeed absolutely excluded by what the theologians wrote, and by the nature of things;
As a result of the first, the theological note of the proposition in question;
As a result of the second, our obligation or ability to affirm the existence of such formal successors without evidence or explanation of how they could have continued.
Further, other difficulties have arisen with regards to some of the explanations mentioned in the third point above, which will be addressed thoughout the articles.
Given the frequency with which this objection is raised, I still believe that it is useful to refute it on its own terms, and to show our opponents that our conclusions stand firm, even with very much conceded for the sake of argument. In other words, this series will explain why we might be obliged to affirm the continued existence of the hierarchy, and why the illegitimacy of Paul VI et al. would not entail its disappearance.
Let us look closer at the objection.
The objection itself
One way of expressing it runs in the following three stages.
Pius XII states in Mystici Corporis, “the ordinary power of jurisdiction” is “receive[d] directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.”1
If Paul VI and his successors have not been true popes, then there has been no pope from whom anyone can directly receive ordinary jurisdiction for around sixty years.
Therefore, if Paul VI and his successors have not been true popes, then there are no more bishops with ordinary jurisdiction.
But only bishops with ordinary jurisdiction are formal successors of the apostles in the proper sense.2
Therefore there would be no more formal successors of the apostles in the proper sense.
But Christ willed that “there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time”,3 and such formal successors of the apostles in the proper sense are an essential aspect of the necessary property of apostolicity.
Therefore, if there are no more formal successors of the apostles in the proper sense, then the Church would have defected.
But the Church cannot defect. Therefore Paul VI and his successors have been true popes.
(For the sake of clarity, I do not accept the formulation of n. 2, and thus deny the conclusion given in the second half of n. 8. I deny the conclusions of nn. 3 and 5. I accept the principles expressed in nn. 4, 6-7 – while being in doubt about whether an accidental interruption may not in fact be possible – and the first sentence of n. 8.)
Various responses to this objection
There are many opposing parties, with opposing conclusions, that agree that the vacancy of the Holy See entails the end of ordinary jurisdiction.
Some “sedeplenists” assert this as a reductio ad absurdum argument, as a means of proving that Paul VI et al. have been true popes.
Some “sedevacantists” hold that “the traditional clergy” now constitute the only true successors of the apostles today, and that they enjoy a different kind of jurisdiction which constitutes them as formal successors.
Some “sedevacantists” believe that there are indeed no more formal successors of the Apostles. They admit that most authors and theologians in the past held that it would be impossible for the entire hierarchy to defect from the faith, and yet believe that “we can see” that God has permitted this to happen, and must rethink things accordingly; for example, they explain the Church’s apostolic succession as being subject to an accidental break, which does not jeopardise the moral continuity; they may also make reference to a “legal material” succession apparently enjoyed by the Conciliar hierarchy.
However it is not true “we can see” that God has permitted a universal disappearance or defection of the hierarchy. What we do “see” is what God has permitted in our immediate environs, and in those parts of the world of which we have knowledge through modern technology. But it seems gratuitous to suggest that we have such an exhaustive view of the world as to be able to assert that the entire hierarchy has defected. Further, it is far from clear that our current situation requires us to deny the existence of such formal successors.
If it is of faith that the indefectible, hierarchical an apostolic Church must always retain living formal successors of the apostles, then we must believe this, even if it is difficult to verify aspects of these points in the concrete. One cannot assert that the hierarchy has disappeared just because we, and enormous swathes of the earth, do not have access to any remaining successors. Such a conclusion simply does not follow.
In order to understand this, let’s first define some key terms.
The property of Apostolicity
The theologian Salaverri writes:
“Apostolicity is a necessary property of the Church.
“Definition of terms. Apostolicity fundamentally is the perennial identity in the Church of the mission, which Christ gave the Apostles when he instituted the Church. Apostolicity usually is distinguished into at least three forms:
Of origin […]
Of doctrine […]
Of succession, which is the juridical identity of the power of teaching, sanctifying and ruling of the contemporary Church with the ordinary power of the Apostles handed on by a legitimate succession.”4
The topic of the property of apostolicity, and how it manifests itself visibly as a note, is addressed in Chapters IV and V of my book-length study Zero Marks:
Chapter IV: Apostolicity as a Mark
Chapter V: Apostolicity as a Property
Here, however, we will be considering one aspect of apostolicity; that of succession. Apostolic succession pertains to apostolicity both as a property and as a mark, and so its importance cannot be limited to succession in so far as it is visible. We are also considering it as it is in itself.
“Succession” is “the continuation of one person after another in some office.”5 Salaverri explains the difference between a “formal succession” and one which is merely “material.”
“A twofold succession should be distinguished, one material and the other formal:
“a) Material succession is a mere temporal continuation of one person after another in some office,
“b) Formal succession is the full substitution of one person in the rights and obligations of an office for someone else, or it is the substitution of a subject without any change of right in a certain office.”6
Of these two types, he states that formal succession – and not merely material succession – is what constitutes the property7 of apostolicity:
“Apostolicity of formal succession is, therefore, that apostolicity of succession defined previously under 3); this will be direct, if by an uninterrupted succession it goes back to a certain Apostle, the first pastor of the same Church; but it will be indirect, if the first in the series of successors properly received his jurisdiction from the pastor of another Church, who can legitimately confer it.”8
He also explains why it is that formal apostolic succession is a necessary and perpetual property of the Church:
“The apostolicity of formal succession is proved, in which others are included.
“A. What Christ instituted perpetually in the Church is its necessary property. But Christ instituted perpetually the juridical identity of the power of the Church of all ages with the ordinary power of the Apostles, to be handed on by a formal succession. Therefore the apostolicity of formal succession is a necessary property of the Church. [Emphasis added]
“The minor is explained: 2) The identical power of the Apostles is to be handed on perpetually by formal succession, because perpetuity is promised by Christ to the same Apostles: Matt. 28:20; John 14:16; but not to the same persons physically; therefore to the same ones morally or juridically, that is, without any change of law, or by formal succession.
“B. St. Irenaeus and Tertullian say that formal succession from the Apostles is a distinctive property of the Church; therefore it is also necessary. The antecedent was already proved in thesis 8 on the successors of the Apostles.”9
Such texts can be multiplied from other, and they are a key reason for why most consider even an accidental break in formal succession to be impossible.
Who are the successors of the apostles?
Canon 329:
§ 1. Bishops are successors of the Apostles and by divine institution are placed over specific churches that they govern with ordinary power under the authority of the Roman Pontiff.
Does this apply to all bishops – including retired bishops, auxiliary or titular bishops, and even to schismatic and heretical bishops? Could it apply to the bishops consecrated following Vatican II to care for the various “traditional” groups – who themselves explicitly deny that they hold any ordinary jurisdiction over specific (or “particular”) churches?
Bouscaren and Ellis answer in the negative, and explain Canon 329 further:
“What is here said of Bishops applies only to resident Bishops, that is, those who are ‘placed over particular churches which they govern.’
“The Code is here treating principally of the power of government or jurisdiction; only incidentally is mention made of titular Bishops, who have the episcopal character and the power of order, but per se no jurisdiction. These canons do not apply to them unless they are specifically mentioned.”10 (Emphasis added)
Salaverri also addresses this question:
“Bishops are those men in the Church who have sacred power that is full in its own nature. They can be either titular or residential.
“Titular Bishops are those who have only the ordinary power of Orders. Residential Bishops are the heads of the particular Churches, who have the ordinary office of ruling a certain flock of the faithful, with the full power of its own nature of teaching, sanctifying and governing.
“Residential Bishops are said to be the successors of the Apostles, as is clear from thesis 8.”11
His “thesis 8” – and the accompanying title of the article in which it falls – gives us further definition:
“BISHOPS ARE SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES.
“Thesis 8. Bishops by divine right succeed the Apostles in their ordinary office; each one of them presides over one particular Church. […]
“A Bishop in our thesis is understood as a man who in a particular Church has the complete ordinary power of teaching, sanctifying and governing. Therefore, the power of the Bishop is not merely delegated or extraordinary or vicarious coming from some other human person, although it is the power of a Bishop ‘placed under the due authority of the Roman Pontiff,’ who not in his own name, ‘but in the name of Christ feeds and governs his flock.’”12 (Emphasis added)
This is a commonplace. Diocesan ordinaries (or their equivalents – namely, those who have this “complete ordinary power” over a flock which may not defined by geography) are the successors of the apostles properly speaking, and other bishops are not.13 This is because they alone succeed to the full pastoral office of the apostles, namely that of teaching, sanctifying and governing subjects proper to them.
As the passage above suggests, the acceptance or approval “by the authority of the Roman Pontiff” – which Van Noort calls the “adoption or assumption into the corporate body of the pastors of the Church” – is a key means by which a formal succession differs from a merely material succession, and is crucial for the attainment of the power of jurisdiction.14
By contrast, a merely material succession to an office, without such adoption and approval, is insufficient to establish someone as a successor of the apostles in this full sense. This is why it is improper and misleading to say that the various Eastern Orthodox bodies enjoy apostolic succession.
Can the Church lose apostolic succession?
If formal apostolic succession is a necessary property of the Church, then it cannot be lost. It would seem that such a loss would constitute the loss of apostolic succession itself – which would constitute a defection of the Church.
In his account of the different roles in the Church, St Paul writes:
“And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors: For the perfecting of the saints, for the word of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Until we all meet into the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ.” (Eph. 4.11-13)
Vatican I takes up this teaching:
“[J]ust as [Christ] sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world, even as he had been sent by the Father, in like manner it was his will that in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.”15
Similarly, St Robert Bellarmine explains it further:
“In no way can the Church exist without shepherds and bishops, as St. Cyprian rightly teaches, the Church is the people united to the bishop, and the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop. […]
“This is certainly proved from St. Paul: [Eph. 4:11 etc]. Where he teaches apostles, he means the pastors who were going to exist in the Church even to the day of judgment.”16
It is obvious that if all formal successors of the apostles died, then there would be a universal vacancy of all diocesan sees. However, we may consider the same to be the case if all such men lost office, perhaps by falling into open heresy or schism. This is why Bellarmine also teaches:
“If all Bishops would err, the whole Church would also err, because the people are held to follow their own pastors, by what the Lord says in Luke, ‘He who hears you, hears me,’ and ‘Whatsoever they say, do.’”17
Naturally, this refers to erring in matters of faith – and matters of faith properly speaking, not just in matters pertaining to religion.
However, when the theologians treat of this issue, one of the primary concerns is answering the Protestant objections to apostolic succession itself; it is to explain that Christ did indeed establish a hierarchical church, and intended certain prerogatives of the original Apostles to continue in successors. In other words, a primary concern with such treatments is establishing the immutability of the Church’s hierarchical constitution. A similar line of argument is pursued in relation to the Papacy: Christ intended St Peter to have have perpetual successors in the primacy, which was not intended for St Peter alone.
However, we know that the papacy continues in spite of interregna – the continuity is one of a moral kind, of which the theologian Dorsch writes:
“The unbroken physical presence of the ruler’s person, however, is not so strictly necessary that it can admit of absolutely no interruption, given what mortal human nature entails.”18
Could this also apply to the hierarchy as a whole in an a fortiori argument?
Does an a fortiori argument apply?
Many “sedevacantists” argue that such an argument could indeed apply to the hierarchy as a whole.
The Roman See, they rightly say, is sufficient on its own to account for both apostolicity and indefectibility. The Roman See remains, even during a vacancy, and the Church can never lose the power of electing a new Pope for herself. But if this can apply to the highest and most necessary member of the hierarchy, they claim, then it can apply with all the more strength to the lower and lesser members of the hierarchy.
This, they claim, means that apostolic succession is retained even if there are no actual successors of the apostles alive, and that to say otherwise would be to make an individual bishop more necessary, indefectible or infallible than the Pope.19
For example, Fr Anthony Cekada stated the following in 2012:
“The monarchical constitution of the Church, [Dorsch] insists, remains absolutely the same, despite the vacancy of the Apostolic See. The Church is headless, incomplete and needs to be complete once again, but its essential NATURE has not changed.
“This is possible because the Apostolic See ‘consists essentially in the RIGHTS (jura) of the Primate. These RIGHTS are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the PRIMACY CONTINUES AT LEAST MORALLY.’ (ibid., 196-7)
“If the vacancy of the GREATER (the Apostolic See with UNIVERSAL jurisdiction) does not change the constitution of the Church established by Our Lord, the vacancy of the LESSER (many episcopal sees throughout the world, enjoying only PARTICULAR jurisdiction) cannot change the constitution of the Church either.
“Each of these individual sees consists essentially in the RIGHTS (jura) of the Ordinary. When one become vacant, it continues to exist, but it must remain vacant until a pope legitimately fills it. And as long as there is no pope — be for it five days or for five decades – it remains vacant.
“And if the number of vacant episcopal sees piles up? Be it one or one thousand, the constitution of the Church remains absolutely the same.”
A similar argument is made be many adherents of Mgr Guérard des Lauriers’ “Cassiciacum Thesis”, most of whom add that the hierarchy is continued in potency by those who occupy diocesan sees materialiter,20 or that apostolic succession is sufficiently maintained by a power of electing a true Pope retained by the Conciliar/Synodal cardinals.21
Many adherents of both the Cassiciacum Thesis and the position of Fr Cekada agree that the potency of such diocesan sees to be filled is sufficient to establish the moral continuity of apostolic succession. (We should note, however, that Mgr Guérard himself does not seem to have ruled out the possibility that some residential bishops may have retained jurisdiction.22) Valid episcopal orders certainly remain; and as the power of electing a Pope remains inherent in the Church, so does the power of establishing the episcopate (in the sense of formal succession). Thus, the interruption in formal succession is accidental (even though it has been very long) and thus the Church retains a moral continuity with the Apostles, even while deprived of living successors.
On the other hand, Matthias Scheeben denies that an a fortiori argument can be made from the accidental interruptions in papal succession to that of the hierarchy. He offers the following distinction between the perpetual succession of the Pope and that of the bishops, and states that the complete defection or disappearance of the apostolic hierarchy would be impossible:
“The indefectibility of the Church and of truth in the Church of course presupposes the indefectibility of the teaching body itself and of its activity. This however takes essentially different forms in the head and in the totality of the members of the teaching body.
“The person who at a given moment is head of the teaching body can die, without any cessation of the continued operation of the authority of the head, and thus without the interruption of the continued existence of the uniform law of faith, and without it becoming impossible for the authority to be transferred to another person.
“The totality of the bishops, however, cannot die without thereby suspending their specific operation as authentic witnesses of the truth and making impossible any further succession in their function.
“Likewise it is possible, notwithstanding the continuing operation of his authority, that the pope extra iudicum [i.e. not ex cathedra] should profess, teach, or attest something false or heretical; on the contrary it is incompatible with the permanent authenticity of the aggregate episcopal testimony that all the bishops should attest, teach, or profess something false or heretical, even extra iudicium [informally].”23
(It should be obvious that “the totality of the bishops” includes the Pope, who is sufficient on his own to establish everything that Scheeben mentions.)
After this section there follows a rather complicated summary, which is simplified in the adaptation of this work produced by Wilhelm and Scannell:
“The Infallibility and Indefectibility of the Church and of the Faith require on the part of the Head, that by means of his legislative and judicial power the law of Faith should be always infallibly proposed; but this does not require the infallibility and indefectibility of his own interior Faith and of his extrajudicial utterances.
“On the part of the Teaching Body as a whole, there is directly required merely that it should not fail collectively, which, of course, supposes that it does not err universally in its internal Faith.”24
It should be clear – as expressed in Scheeben’s original, as well as elsewhere – that the death, defection from the faith or imposition of a false religion on the part of all the successors of the apostles constitutes a disappearance in the sense discussed, and is impossible.
Which position is correct? All theologians agree that formal succession is a necessary property of the Church, but far fewer clarify specifically that this necessitates there being living successors at all times. While this may seem obvious, a level of caution is required: some things that seemed obvious at one time, have proved to be false at a later date – and we are tempted to assume that they must have been obviously possible before. I do not believe that the facts have proved Scheeben’s position to be false; but – as Mgr Guérard is frequently quoted as saying:
“At the risk of offending certain polemicists, we recall that theology does not consist solely in repetition, but also in reflection. It is not merely a matter of brandishing some text copied from a trendy journal, but of studying the meaning, scope, and value of the texts one claims to rely upon.”25
Having spent time in such “reflection”, I am compelled to acknowledge that there is a logic to the a fortiori arguments. However, it remains the case that these arguments are generally based on such logic, rather than authorities that directly support the line of argument; some even acknowledge that such authorities would have been against them.26
Because of this – even if the a fortiori arguments were sound, and there were indeed no formal successors of the Apostles remaining in the world – I still believe that it is can be unhelpful to insist on it to the exclusion of the surviving formal successors, and that it is valuable to show, for the sake of argument, that an extended vacancy does not necessitate a universal vacancy of all diocesan sees.
Preliminary conclusions
The theologians cited seem to demonstrate the truth of the conditional sixth and seventh points in the objection given above (i.e., that if there are no more successors of the apostles in the proper sense, then the Church is no longer apostolic; and thus would have defected).
But a defection is impossible; therefore – if even an accidental interruption is impossible, which we are conceding for the sake of argument – then there must remain such men in the world. If this is the case, we can affirm it without having to show who these men are, and even without having to explain how this is the case. We may simply affirm it, and rest in the obscurity of faith.
However, few find this satisfactory. So, for their sake, we will proceed to consider how such formal successors of the apostles may remain in the world, even if there were to be no Roman Pontiff to appoint or approve them personally. To do this, we need to consider some fundamental points, such as the definitions of offices and of jurisdiction itself.
This shall be the subject of the next part.
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
The Apostolicity of the Church
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
Twitter (The WM Review)
Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, 1943, n. 42 available at https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi.html
This is the point to be established in this piece. Cf. Salaverri: “Residential Bishops are said to be the successors of the Apostles, as is clear from thesis 8.” Joachim Salaverri, ‘On the Church of Christ,’ in Sacrae Theologia Summa IB trans. Kenneth Baker SJ , Keep the Faith, 2015, n. 542.
Vatican I, Pastor aeternus Session 4, 1870 no. 3. Available at: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum20.htm
Salaverri n. 1176
Salaverri n. 334
Salaverri n. 334
Cf. Zero Marks for an explanation of the distinction between the four notes of the Church, and the four properties which they manifest.
In his debate with John Lane, Fr Anthony Cekada made the following point:
2. Think about this: Mr. Lane’s Bishop in the Woods thesis, in fact, DEFEATS the two things about the Church it is supposed to save:
a. Visibility — because no one can see this bishop.
b. Apostolicity — for how can the Church be RECOGNIZED by the mark of apostolicity if no one can FIND the one bishop who is supposed to continue and embody it?
The distinction between apostolicity as a note and as a property shows Fr Cekada’s objection to fail, because we are considering apostolicity as a property. As such, the visibility of such a person is irrelevant (although it can be answered), as is his role in making the Catholic Church recognisable as the Church of Christ.
Source: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AW6hML6RRwZxcMmC_iAYppxQ7gQFftdL/view, p. 34.
Salaverri n. 1178
Salaverri nn. 1180-1
Bouscaren and Ellis, Canon Law – A Text and Commentary, p. 177. The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee, 1963.
Salaverri n. 542
Salaverri Art. II, Th. 8, and n. 335
C.f also Berry:
“In the strict sense of the term, the successors of the Apostles are those in the Church, who obtain by right of succession the full powers of Orders and jurisdiction enjoyed by the Apostles.”
E. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ, 1955 version, Wipf and Stock Publishers, Eugene, OR, 2009, p 157.
“To be able to [function as pastors of their dioceses and to exercise jurisdiction there], we state, they must be adopted by the authority of the supreme pontiff. Adoption (assumptio) is a short form standing for “adoption or assumption into the corporate body of the pastors of the Church.” […]
“We use the phrase, “by the authority of the pope,” to indicate that a direct, personal intervention by the pope is not necessarily required. So long as the adoption be done by someone to whom the pope has entrusted the task (regardless of the precise way in which the pope commissions him to do so), or in accord with regulations already established or approved by the pope.
“In saying that papal adoption is necessary, we do not mean it is merely necessary because of ecclesiastical law currently in force; we mean it is necessary by the divine law itself.”
Van Noort, ‘Christ’s Church,’ Dogmatic Theology Vol. II, trans. Castelot and Murphy, The Newman Press, Westminster Maryland, 1957, n. 200.
Vatican I, Pastor aeternus Session 4, 1870 no. 3. Available at: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum20.htm
St Robert Bellarmine, On the Church Militant, p 388. Trans. Ryan Grant, Mediatrix Press, Post Falls, ID, 2017.
Bellarmine, p. 325.
The charge that insisting on living formal successors makes an individual bishop more necessary, indefectible or infallible than the Pope is false for several reasons.
Two preliminary clarifications. The debate pertains not to the election of a Pope (as some have understood) but because apostolicity is a necessary property of the Church. Although the Pope is sufficient to establish apostolic succession by himself, apostolicity is a wider concept than the papacy and not wholly reducible to it, comprising as it does apostolicity of membership, of doctrine and of succession. Succession is a distinct issue from membership and doctrine, and so the problem also cannot be shifted onto them.
Nor is this debate strictly about visibility, as will be discussed in subsequent parts. Apostolicity does not only exist as a note, to render the Church visible; it is also a property. As such, discussing what must be the case even if we cannot personally verify it is not at all to “miss the point” of apostolicity, as some claim. The thesis says that the property of apostolicity entails the hierarchy necessarily being instantiated somewhere; as it pertains to the property, rather than to the note, it is indifferent as to whether that instantiation is blindingly obvious or hardly visible to anyone; it is also indifferent as to whether it be in the Pope, twelve hundred residential bishops, or a few obscure ordinaries in a place we cannot see. Further, the visibility of the Church is such as to tolerate a very great obscuration of some of her parts, as discussed in Radically Insufficient.
The objection itself. The thesis under attack is that there must always be some formal successors in the world. It is not a claim about any particular man, or any particular see. Each individual bishop remains as dispensable as he ever was: he may die, his see may fall vacant, he may lose his office by heresy or schism; with the exception of the See of Rome, his see (and indeed all other sees) may fall into abeyance or be suppressed. Nothing whatsoever is asserted of any individual successor that would place him above the Roman Pontiff. The objection is based on a category error.
Next, indefectibility would not here be attributed to individual bishops at all, but to the Church. She has certain properties of which she cannot be deprived without defecting, and therefore is not now deprived of them, and cannot now be deprived of them. If this includes a divine promise that there will always be living successors, then it must be so. Something similar may be seen in the property of risibility: humanity cannot be deprived of risibility, but this does not mean that human nature is grounded in, founded on or constituted by risibility. It is simply a necessary property, required as a consequence of what we are. To say that a necessary property cannot be absent is not to make it more fundamental than the nature which possesses it. We see here, again, the category error at the heart of the objection.
The form of the objection also proves too much, as is clear in Mr John Lane’s challenge of the “accidental interruption” below:
“It’s essentially no different from a thesis which states that there can be no members of the Catholic Church left in the whole world, as long as potentially there can be new members again some day.
“So, here’s how such a thesis would look:
“All baptised Christians have left the Church by heresy or schism. Therefore there are no members of the Church left. But there remains the possibility of valid baptism, because even a Jew can baptise validly in the case of necessity; and there remain valid episcopal orders amongst various sects, so that element of the Church’s constitution remains potentially recoverable also; and a pope can be elected once there are real Christians again, because the Church always radically retains her power to provide herself with a visible head, and he can then provide everything still lacking to the Church to make her actually exist once again.”
Source: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AW6hML6RRwZxcMmC_iAYppxQ7gQFftdL/view
The Church may be without a Pope, but she may never be without members. If the objection were sound, it would follow that the ordinary layman is more indefectible or necessary than the Pope, which is obviously false. This reductio does show that there are different orders of necessity in the Church, and that to confuse them may become a category error.
(However, we should point out that the potency mentioned initially (that of electing the Pope, who would then appoint actual successors of the Apostles) is understood as being proper to the Church and existing within her, and corresponding to the rights of those who continue to be her members. As such, this potency is in keeping with her status as a perfect society (having everything which she needs within herself, without any dependance on an external society). On the other hand, Mr Lane’s counter example entails there being no members at all, which means that there is no body of men in whom this potency is vested. It would entail “the Church” – insofar as she could be said still to exist – turning to “a Jew” to constitute members, and to “the various sects” to constitute valid orders. But this is not in keeping with the perfection or self-sufficiency of a perfect society. As a result, the two cases are not parallel: a universal vacancy of sees leaves the remedy inside the Church, whereas a universal absence of members places it outside her. As a result, a “universal vacancy” of actual successors may be able to suffer an accidental interruption, in keeping with a moral continuity (provided there is no divine promise to exclude this); on the other hand, the “universal absence” of actual Catholics would not be. All would agree that the latter would constitute the disappearance and thus defection of the Church, whereas whether the former would constitute the same is the question at hand.)
There are, in effect, two questions here. The first is whether an accidental interruption is compatible with moral continuity in succession; the second is, granting that the first is answered in the affirmative in principle, whether the promises of Christ nonetheless exclude it in the case of the Church.
Answering these questions is not necessary for the apologetic purpose of this series. Either Christ’s promises do exclude such an interruption, in which case there remain formal successors of the apostles in the world even at this time – and explaining how this may be so, notwithstanding the vacancy of the Holy See, is the purpose of the following parts; or the promises do not exclude it, in which case the objection fails at an earlier stage, because the continued existence of formal successors in act would not be that in which apostolicity of succession consists.
In either case, the conclusion drawn by our opponents does not follow. It is only for the sake of the first option that we proceed as we do.
I have previously argued as follows:
“[A] merely material succession is no succession in the relevant sense, just as a mere potential to reclaim jurisdiction is not jurisdiction itself. The continuing existence of the hierarchy is not safeguarded by saying that it can cease to exist in act whilst lapsing into mere potency.”
Further reflection over the years has convinced me that what we see in the structures of the Conciliar/Synodal Church is not what I described as a “merely” material succession. Although several theologians divide succession into that which is formal and material, and state that the distinction is that formal succession is that which takes place according to law and results in the succession to the powers of office (as discussed in this article), it is now difficult for me to dismiss the fact that the succession of the Conciliar/Synodal officers did indeed take place according to law – at least apparently – resulting in an at least putative title to succession. In other words, my previous objections to the idea of a “legitimate material succession” now seem to lack force to me, and I do not wish to deny so strongly that the Church’s apostolicity cannot be so reduced and deprived to the humiliating state of relying on a “material succession” like that of the Conciliar/Synodal Church.
Much more could be said on this, but it is outside the scope of this article. Suffice it to say that Mgr Guérard des Lauriers did not seem to believe that his Thesis necessarily required the universal reduction of the hierarchy to a state of material succession – and that the apologetic value of explaining why an extended vacancy is compatible with the continuity of the hierarchy in act remains.
The body of this essay previously contained the following:
“[T]his essay is about apostolic succession and the perpetuity of the hierarchy. It is not entering into discussion of the so-called “cassiciacum thesis” of Bishop Guérard des Lauriers.
“This theory attributes significance to the fact that Francis et al. enjoy a certain merely material succession to the papacy. Some of its proponents do use the idea of a ‘material hierarchy”’ as a means of arguing for their ideas – but the central ideas relate to the papacy, and are not dependent on either the continuity or disappearance of the hierarchy. As an aside, Fr Hervé Belmont (who adheres to the cassiciacum theory) claims that the idea of a “material hierarchy” is a later accretion to the discourse, and states that he does not accept it (although for different reasons to those we have expressed here).*
“Asserting the necessary continuity of the hierarchy may undermine certain arguments for or interpretations of the Cassiciacum Thesis, without undermining the theory itself. While I do not accept this theory, its central ideas do not exclude the continuity of the hierarchy in act – nor do they depend on its universal non-continuity. As such this essay is not intended as a critique of this theory.”
The asterisk led to the following remarks from Fr Hervé Belmont:
“The second development which I resist is later, and moreover I do not know to whom it should be attributed. It is the assertion that not only are we in the presence of a pope materialiter tantum, but that we would be in the presence, in Rome and in all the dioceses of Christendom, of a whole hierarchy materialiter, from the bishops and cardinals almost to the sacristans.
“This also seems to me to be wrong for the following two imperative reasons:
For the apostolicity of the Catholic Church considered under the aspect of continuity, only the succession of the Apostolic See matters. The permanence of each of the other sees is not indispensable: there is no necessity of faith (and therefore no adequacy to reality) to assert a materialiter about them;
The appointments of cardinals and bishops are acts of papal jurisdiction, which is precisely absent and which nothing can replace – whereas the appointment of the Supreme Pontiff is not an act of jurisdiction at all, which makes the question of the Roman See radically different from that of particular Sees or the Sacred College.”
Fr Hervé Belmont, taken from “The ‘Cassiciacum Thesis’”. For the sake of clarity, while we agree that apostolic succession could, in certain senses, be said to depend only on the continuity of the Apostolic See, we do not agree that it follows that the entire hierarchy could therefore disappear or lapse into potency, leaving no living successors of the apostles on earth.
Mgr Guérard wrote:
What remains of this Sessio in the current “official church”? Our dear “faithful” Bishops, NN.SS. THUC, LEFEBVRE, DE CASTRO MAYER… unanimously (!) have “resigned”; on which there would be much to say, if one lingered over weeping or amusing oneself. But the fact is there, brutal, ineluctable. In resigning, they recognised as the Authority a Montini or a W mortgaged by a capital schism; weary or duped, they have lost all Authority, they participate no more in the Sessio than GUÉRARD DES LAURIERS and others. They can, it is true, sound the tocsin of the so glorious episcopal resistance! There they are humbly reduced to the rôle of the famous “Quasimodo” in the atrium of their cathedrals. God hear them! “Epheta, quod est adaperire” (Mark VII. 34)! May God make resound the melody so carefully prepared by Fr. de BLIGNIÈRES [in the work Letter to Cetain Bishops] in the ears of some residential bishop… imprisoned, or delayed, or retarded… sufficiently conditioned so that this bishop may not yet have been able to posit the human act which alone would change into sin the at least tacit acquiescence to the “sessio-W.” All hope is not lost.
And this simple glimmer ABSOLUTELY FORBIDS ENVISAGING, EVEN AS A SIMPLE EVENTUALITY, the reconstitution of a pseudo-sessio from Bishops who have no ORDINARY jurisdiction [though they do have jurisdiction per modum actus, by virtue of the MISSIO, to validly confect whatever Sacrament it may be, in favour of whatever faithful it may be]. [Italics added] This is why I protest against the calumny that consists in amalgamating me with the Palmar, or with the Bishops consecrated by Bishop THUC, who risk very much a new Gregory XVII adventure. It is regrettable that Bishop THUC allows himself to be inveigled on this point, whereas he very lucidly broke with the Palmar from 6 August 1978 [the date on which Clemente believed himself “pope”]. The fears expressed by Archbishop Lefebvre regarding the “ten or fifteen bishops” are therefore justified; but the same fears are even more grave with regard to Archbishop Lefebvre himself. HE, JUST LIKE THEM, ALL have the obsession with the Sessio; he, senile and puerile, clings to the coat-tails of a heretic… provided he be seated! They, braggarts and “virile” (humanum dico), want, by whatever means, to install some person or other, in order to be able to refer to someone seated. It is the same error that the seductive securism so dangerously propagates.
NO to all that. The Sessio cannot be re-established in the Church by persons who are deprived of it. Such is the certain principle that must be applied at all costs. God will intervene. On this point, one must wait, “in silentio et spe”… (Isaiah XXX. 15); “hoping against hope itself” (Rom. IV. 18).
Déclaration, in Bulletin de l’Occident Chrétien, n. 84 of October 1983; Missio et Sessio, supplement to Sous la bannière, n. 7 of Sept.-Oct. 1986. Fr Piergiorgio Coradello IMBC’s paper How it is that we are seated summarised it as follows:
If ecclesiastical jurisdiction were necessary today — something which even Mons. Guérard, in his prudence and humility, appears not to have totally excluded (45) — we should have to deny a supplying of jurisdiction on the part of the Church, because the power comes from the Authority and not from the collectivity.
(45) In many letters and writings subsequent to Vatican II, Mons. Guérard speaks en passant of this supplying for confessions. Here is an example: “[The mere possibility that a bishop reject Vatican II] ABSOLUTELY FORBIDS ONE TO CONSIDER, EVEN BY WAY OF SIMPLE EVENTUALITY, the reconstitution of a pseudo-sessio starting from bishops who have no ORDINARY jurisdiction (although they have jurisdiction per modum actus*, in virtue of the MISSIO, for confecting validly any Sacrament whatsoever, in favour of any of the faithful whatsoever)*” (Déclaration, in Bulletin de l’Occident Chrétien, n. 84 of October 1983; taken up again in Missio et Sessio, supplement to Sous la bannière, n. 7 of Sept.-Oct. 1986).
Monsignor never examined this subject in depth ex professo, unfortunately; I think that a supplying for the sacramental – perhaps juridical – assignment of the subject of the confession was the idea which at first sight he reputed probable.
In addition, Bishop Donald Sanborn has suggested that if a Conciliar/Synodal bishop were to “convert”, he would attain the office or jurisdiction to which he had at least a putative title. In 2021, he said to Kevin Davis:
“If some of these Novus Ordo bishops were to convert – which is entirely possible. they could achieve jurisdiction, if they’re the head of a diocese, and then form an imperfect council. I’m just throwing that out as a possibility, I’m not saying this is what we think. This is a speculation.
Fr Francesco Ricossa IMBC also seems to have implied something similar, writing the following in relation to an Imperfect General Council:
However, the election is possible in potency: on the one hand because in principle it cannot be otherwise, as we have seen; on the other hand because, in fact, the electors canonically qualified to elect the Pope exist materially. In fact, according to the Thesis, the Cardinals created by “popes” materialiter retain the power to elect the Pontiff, just as the Bishops, appointed by “popes” materialiter to the various episcopal sees, occupy them materially and could, once returned to the public and integral profession of the Faith, be electors of the Pope in the absence of Cardinals. The “pope” himself who occupies the See only materially, could, anathematizing all errors and professing the Faith integrally, become Pope in all respects formally. As can be seen, the Thesis of Cassiciacum responds to the objections raised against sedevacantism by the “modernists” and by the “Lefebvrists,” whereas the other sedevacantist theses are not capable of doing so.
https://www.wmreview.org/p/who-can-elect-a-pope-fr-ricossa
The latter two examples suggest that, for at least these two clerics, the Cassiciacum Thesis does not exclude the possibility of men attaining office, and therefore jurisdiction, in the absence of a reigning Roman Pontiff. This seems to be for the precise reason that the jurisdiction is attached to the office.
Matthias J. Scheeben, Handbook of Catholic Dogmatics, Book One (Theological Epistemology), Part One (The Objective Principles of Theological Knowledge), originally published 1873-87, trans. Michael J. Miller, Emmaus Academic, Steubenville, Ohio, 2019, §14 n. 188. Cf. also the adaptation made by Wilhelm and Scannell, with a preface by Cardinal Manning, which renders these paragraphs thus:
“The Indefectibility of the Teaching Body is at the same time a condition and a consequence of the Indefectibility of the Church. A distinction must, however, be drawn between the Indefectibility of the Head and the Indefectibility of the subordinate members. The individual who is the Head may die, but the authority of the Head does not die with him—it is transmitted to his successor.
“On the other hand, the Teaching Body as a whole could not die or fail without irreparably destroying the continuity of authentic testimony.
“Again, the Pope’s authority would not be injured if, when not exercising it (extra judicium), he professed a false doctrine, whereas the authenticity of the episcopal testimony would be destroyed if under any circumstances the whole body fell into heresy.”
Joseph Wilhelm and T.B. Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology; based on Scheeben’s “Dogmatik,” Vol. I, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., Ltd, London, 1909, pp 45. Available from Os Justi Press.
Wilhelm and Scannell, 46.
Cahiers de Cassiciacum, vol. 3–4.
For example, Bishop Donald Sanborn said in 2021:
“Most authors in the past, theologians in the past, would say ‘Oh, it would be impossible that the entire hierarchy defect from the faith,’ and so they never gave us instructions or principles in what to do or what to think in the present situation. They thought it impossible, they thought it would be something that God would not permit.
“But in fact, we have seen that he has permitted it, and so we have to draw from principles of ecclesiology – that is, the science of the Church – in order to explain the present situation. And we have to come up with an explanation that shows that the Catholic Church is still continuing both in its mission, and in its succession of popes and bishops – at the same time, preserving the Church from any kind of defection from the faith.”