Various Churches - A Rebuttal

I had earlier posted Fr. Laisney's rebuttal of Bishop Williamson's EC281 'Various Churches' and also discussed it as an example of 'FUD'.

I have reproduced below an edited version of replies that I made as part of a discussion that I had on the now defunk Ignis Ardens forum.  While the thread was very long, I have, to date, only been able to locate two parts of my rebuttal / analysis of EC281.

Part 1

... moving on to the EC281, let's break down the assertions:

Paragraph 1: Much confusion reigns today over the identity of Our Lord’s true Church here on earth, and the variety of names by which it can be called.

So, the intent is to clear up any confusion as to the identity of Our Lord's true Church. My assumption is that his Excellency means the Holy Roman Catholic Church

Paragraph 2:“Church” derives from the Old English “cirice”, deriving in turn from the Greek word “kuriakon”, meaning “of the Lord”. Thus “Doma kuriakon” meant “house of the Lord”, and from naming the building, “church” came to mean also the people that were regularly to be found in the building.

While this is an interesting diversion to know the Old English origins of the word, it doesn't actually tell us how the word came to be used in the context of Catholicism. To set the matter straight we will highlight what is found in the Roman Catechism:

The word ecclesia (church) means a calling forth. But writers afterward used it to signify a meeting or assembly, whether the people gathered together were members of a true or of a false religion. ...
... In a word, The Church, says St. Augustine, consists of the faithful dispersed throughout the world.'

...
... Wherefore, the Christian people are justly called, not a Synagogue, but a Church, because, despising earthly and passing things, they pursue only things heavenly and eternal.

Many names, ... have been used to designate the Christian body. Thus, by the Apostle, it is called the house and edifice of God. ... The Church is called a house, because it is, as it were, one family governed by one father of the family, and enjoying a community of all spiritual goods.
It is also called the flock of the sheep of Christ,.... It is called the spouse of Christ...
Finally, the Church is called the body of Christ, as may be seen in the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians. Each of these appellations has very great influence in exciting the faithful to prove themselves worthy of the boundless clemency and goodness of God, who chose them to be the people of God.

So the focus on the building is not a complete picture of how the Church understands the word.

Paragraph 3:“Catholic” Church names many a building, but principally the worldwide group of people (“katholos” in Greek means “universal”) who share one Faith, one set of Sacraments and one Hierarchy, ... But from this original group of believers as instituted by Our Lord, other groups have regularly broken away, while still claiming to be Christ’s true Church. How then am I to know which is his true Church ?

Now he has gotten to the point. While I take exception to his ordering of the Faith, Sacraments and Hierarchy (I later discovered this is one of the standard expressions) I think we can move on ...

Paragraph 4:“Christ’s Church” has four Marks, as they are called.

1 One - above all by oneness of Faith Our Lord meant to unite his Church ...
2 Holy - Our Lord founded his Church to bring men to the All-Holy God and his holy Heaven

3 Catholic - Our Lord founded his Church for all men of all lands and all ages

4 Apostolic - Our Lord founded his Church as a monarchy, to be ruled by the Apostle Peter and his successors (cf. Mt. XVI, 18: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock (in Greek “petran”) I will found my Church”).

Wherever these four Marks are, there is Christ’s true Church. Where they are lacking, there is not Christ’s Church.

Continuing the compare and contrast with the Catechism we find the following:

Mark 1. Here we find that Bishop Williamson has left something out.  In the Catechism we find:

The first mark of the true Church is described in the Nicene Creed, and consists in unity: ... called one for the reasons mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians: One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

The Church has but one ruler and one governor, the invisible one, Christ, whom the eternal Father hath made head over all the Church, which is his body; the visible one, the Pope, who, as legitimate successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, fills the Apostolic chair.
It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church. ... Following no chief but Christ, I am united in communion with your Holiness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that on that rock is built the Church. ...
...
... You cannot be excused on the score of ignorance, knowing as you do that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was first conferred on Peter, who occupied it as head of the Apostles; in order that in that one chair the unity of the Church might be preserved by all, and that the other Apostles might not claim each a chair for himself; so that now he who erects another in opposition to this single chair is a schismatic and a prevaricator.
......
Should anyone object that the Church is content with one Head and one Spouse, Jesus Christ, and requires no other, the answer is obvious. For as we deem Christ not only the author of all the Sacraments, but also their invisible minister -- He it is who baptises, He it is who absolves, although men are appointed by Him the external ministers of the Sacraments -- so has He placed over His Church, which He governs by His invisible Spirit, a man to be His vicar and the minister of His power. A visible Church requires a visible head; therefore the Saviour appointed Peter head and pastor of all the faithful, when He committed to his care the feeding of all His sheep, in such ample terms that He willed the very same power of ruling and governing the entire Church to descend to Peter's successors.
Moreover, the Apostle, writing to the Corinthians, tells them that there is but one and the same Spirit who imparts grace to the faithful, as the soul communicates life to the members of the body. Exhorting the Ephesians to preserve this unity, he says: Be careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; one body and one Spirit. As the human body consists of many members, animated by one soul, which gives sight to the eves, hearing to the ears, and to the other senses the power of discharging their respective functions; so the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church, is composed of many faithful. The hope, to which we are called, is also one, as the Apostle tells us in the same place; for we all hope for the same consummation, eternal and happy life. Finally, the faith which all are bound to believe and to profess is one: Let there be no schisms amongst you, says the Apostle. And Baptism, which is the seal of our Christian faith, is also one.

So the contrast between the teaching of the Church and Bishop Williamson's is, I'm afraid, quite distinct.  While Bishop Williamson focuses on the Faith 'above all', the Church in her Wisdom gives a complete picture. That of 'Unity in Government'  with the Vicar of Christ as well as the Faith.

<<< Editors Note: The refrain "Faith above all", is never very far from the lips of Bishop Williamson et al.  While it is obvious that one cannot obey a command that goes against the Divine Law, as God must be obeyed in all things, however to hold the principle to the exclusion of the other aspects of the truth of the faith is nothing less than an error by excess - similar to the liberals. >>>

That Bishop Williamson overlooks this aspect of the Unity of the Church, not to mention the clear and more recent teachings of the First Vatican Council, is troubling to say the least.

Mark 2. Bishop Williamson's interpretation appears to be quite off the mark.  Whereas he simply states the object 'to bring men to the All-Holy God and his holy Heaven', the Church has a deeper understanding as noted above in detail.

Namely:

The second mark of the Church is holiness, as we learn from these words of the Prince of the Apostles: You are a chosen generation, a holy nation.
The Church is called holy because she is consecrated and dedicated to God; for so other things when set apart and dedicated to the worship of God were wont to be called holy, even though they were material. ...
It should not be deemed a matter of surprise that the Church, although numbering among her children many sinners, is called holy. ... so in like manner the faithful, although offending in many things and violating the engagements to which they had pledged themselves, are still called holy, because they have been made the people of God and have consecrated themselves to Christ by faith and Baptism. Hence, St. Paul calls the Corinthians sanctified and holy, although it is certain that among them there were some whom he severely rebuked as carnal, and also charged with grosser crimes.
The Church is also to be called holy because she is united to her holy Head, as His body; that is, to Christ the Lord,' the fountain of all holiness, from whom flow the graces of the Holy Spirit and the riches of the divine bounty. ... And a little further on: If all Christians and all the faithful, having been baptised in Christ, have put Him on, according to these words of the Apostle: "As many of you as have been baptised in Christ, have put on Christ"; if they are made members of his body, and yet say they are not holy, they do an injury to their Head, whose members are holy.
Moreover, the Church alone has the legitimate worship of sacrifice, and the salutary use of the Sacraments, which are the efficacious instruments of divine grace, used by God to produce true holiness. Hence, to possess true holiness, we must belong to this Church. The Church therefore it is clear, is holy, and holy because she is the body of Christ, by whom she is sanctified, and in whose blood she is washed.

Now let's step back a bit, the Church is holy because
a. she is consecrated to God. Even though there are sinners in her midst.
b. she is united to Christ her holy Head, as His body
c. because of her possession of legitimate worship of sacrifice and Sacraments.

not because:

Our Lord founded his Church to bring men to the All-Holy God and his holy Heaven

I am afraid that objectively, based on this contrast, Bishop Williamson's understanding of the Mark of Holiness of the Church is gravely deficient.

Mark 3: Bishop Williamson seems to have captured this mark.

Mark 4:

Here Bishop Williamson seems to be at variance with Church Teaching, again.

Bishop Williamson:

Our Lord founded his Church as a monarchy, to be ruled by the Apostle Peter and his successors

While it is try that the Church was founded as a monarchy, that does not actually seem to bear on the Mark.

Here is what the Church taught in the Roman Catechism:

The true Church is also to be recognized from her origin, which can be traced back under the law of grace to the Apostles; for her doctrine is the truth not recently given, nor now first heard of, but delivered of old by the Apostles, and disseminated throughout the entire world. Hence no one can doubt that the impious opinions which heresy invents, opposed as they are to the doctrines taught by the Church from the days of the Apostles to the present time, are very different from the faith of the true Church.
That all, therefore, might know which was the Catholic Church, the Fathers, guided by the Spirit of God, added to the Creed the word Apostolic. For the Holy Ghost, who presides over the Church, governs her by no other ministers than those of Apostolic succession. This Spirit, first imparted to the Apostles, has by the infinite goodness of God always continued in the Church. And just as this one Church cannot err in faith or morals, since it is guided by the Holy Ghost; so, on the contrary, all other societies arrogating to themselves the name of church, must necessarily, because guided by the spirit of the devil, be sunk in the most pernicious errors, both doctrinal and moral.

So that brings us to the end of the Marks of the Church.

Bishop Williamson scores a 1/2 mark for the Oneness, 0 for the second mark,  1 for the third mark, and 0 for the fourth mark. 1.5 out of a possible 4.

That is a failing mark (pun intended) and should be sufficient to cause concern amongst his followers.

Moving on to the next paragraph in 'Various Churches'... I hope we shall now get to the heart of the matter ...

Paragraph 5:
“Conciliar Church” =  Catholic Church under the sway of the man-centred Second Vatican Council.

Conciliarism: bears the same relation to the true Church of Christ as the rot of a rotten apple bears to the apple which it is rotting. Just as rot occupies the apple, depends on the apple, cannot exist without the apple, yet is quite different from the apple (as uneatable is different from eatable),

Conciliarism so occupies Christ’s Church that little of the Church is not more or less rotten,

Conciliarism is so different from Catholicism that one can truly say that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church.

But the Catholic Church is visible. Isn’t the Conciliar Church also visible ?

Here we need to unravel the various definitions and see if a conclusion is reached.

The basic assertions:

1. Conciliar Church = Catholic Church under influence of Conciliarism
2. Those areas of the Catholic Church under the influence of Conciliarism are not the Church but rotting parts of the Church.
3. Most of the Catholic Church is so occupied by Conciliarism that little is not affected.
4. Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church

These four assertions form a part of the foundation for the next paragraphs.  The conclusion is the distinction between the 'Conciliar Church' and the 'Catholic Church' made in the last point.  The 'rot' is not part of the Church and the Conciliar Church forms a distinct separate Church.

In spite of the best intentions of Bishop Williamson's supporters, this is the conclusion that I draw from the convoluted words of Bishop Williamson.

In contrast we have simply the following teaching:

The Church militant is composed of two classes of persons, the good and the bad, both professing the same faith and partaking of the same Sacraments, yet differing in their manner of life and morality.

So one Church with the good, and bad.  It is sad that they left out the ugly.

Now some will segue into the presumed heresy of the members.  It would interesting to move down that rabbit hole but ... barring the occult heretics separating themselves from the Church or being given admonitions, I think we can leave that aside for now.

Paragraph 6:
“Visible Church” means all the buildings, officials and people of the Church that we can see with our eyes.

But to say that the Catholic Church is visible, therefore the visible Church is the Catholic Church, is as foolish as to say that all lions are animals so all animals are lions.
That part alone of the visible Church is Catholic which is one, holy, universal and apostolic. The rest is various sorts of rot.

For a definition of the visible Church I turned to Ludwig Ott.

The Church founded by Christ is an extemal visible commonwealth. (Sent. certa.)
According to the teaching of the Council of Trent there is in the Church "a visible sacrifice" and an "visible and external priesthood" (D 957). The Vatican Council teaches that Christ appointed the Apostle Peter to be the " visible foundation" (D1821) of the unity of the Church. Leo XIII, in the Encyclical "Satis cognitum" (1896), teaches: "When one visualises the ultimate purpose of the Church and the proxituate causes effecting sanctity, she is, in fact, spiritual. But when one considers the members of the Church and the means which lead to the spiritual gifts, then she is externally and necessarily visible." A threefold sensible bond binds the members of the Church to one another, and makes them known as such: the profession of the same Faith, the use of the same means of grace, and the subordination to the same authority

The contrast between Church teaching and Bishop Williamson's opinion is fairly stark, especially the persistent fascination with buildings.

Paragraph 7:
“Official Church” means the Church as led by, and following, its visible officials.

Since these today are largely Conciliar, so the “official Church” is largely Conciliar and not Catholic, according to the four Marks.

Similarly “Mainstream Church”means today’s official Church as opposed to the “Traditionalist” remnant.

However, let nobody say there is nothing one, holy, universal or apostolic left in the mainstream Church, any more than everything in the “Traditionalist” remnant shows forth the four Marks.

Wheat and chaff are always mixed in Christ’s Church (cf. Mt. XIII, 24-30).

Finally, we reach the last paragraph of the 'Various Churches' monograph of Bishop Williamson.

We've already demonstrated that his understanding of the Four Marks is faulty.  As a consequence, equally faulty is his conclusion:

so the “official Church” is largely Conciliar and not Catholic, according to the four Marks.

Looking at the Catholic Church, whose visible head is Pope Francis, we find Four Marks as explained in the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

1. Unity of Government and Faith:  The Government is obvious and the Faith (in spite of some efforts) remains complete - all Catholics who implicitly believe all the Church Teaches remain united.  (Catholic Material Heretics are treated differently that Protestants by the Church)

2. The Catholic Church Remains Holy:
a. she is consecrated to God. Even though there are sinners in her midst.
b. she is united to Christ her holy Head, as His body
c. because of her possession of legitimate worship of sacrifice and Sacraments.

3. She remains Catholic (Universal)

4. She remains Apostolic

The conclusion I reach, based on Church Teaching, is that the 'Modern Church' as some call it, remains the Holy Catholic Church and that Traditional Catholics who are not breaking communion with the Church (as I would allege some sedevacantists do) are in communion with the members of the Church.

Part 2

First off, this is basically an argument about the authority and meaning of various statements made by various actors.

The actors, in order of authority, from greatest to least are:

Holy Roman Catholic Church (as represented in the Roman Catechism)

Archbishop Lefebvre (as represented in various oral and written communications)

Bishop Williamson (as represented in Eleison Comments CCLXXXI - 281 - VARIOUS “CHURCHES”

You (the reader) / Me (the Tradical)

Now if any of the subservient authorities contradict the highest - this being Catholic Church Teaching - then the lower authority in question is wrong.

What is Church Teaching concerning the Church with an emphasis on its visibility, oneness, and membership?
The complete article is quoted in the following link.

That the Church is a body is frequently asserted in the Sacred Scriptures. "Christ," says the Apostle, "is the Head of the Body of the Church." If the Church is a body, it must be an unbroken unity, according to those words of Paul: "Though many we are one body in Christ." But it is not enough that the body of the Church should be an unbroken unity; it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses as Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum asserts: "the Church is visible because she is a body." Pius XII -Mystici Corporis

To sum up this aspect: The visible Church is the Mystical Body of Christ which is the One Holy Roman Catholic Church

Now turning our attention to the Roman Catechism.  Let's be certain that there is no mistake, the Roman Catechism is also known as the Catechism of the Council of Trent. 

This article is particularly important for Traditional Catholics who are scandalized at the repeated affronts to the faith offered by various members of the clergy and hierarchy - including the Pope.  I would like to draw your attention to the 'second consideration':

... he whose mind is strongly impressed with the truth taught in this Article, will easily escape the awful danger of heresy. For a person is not to be called a heretic as soon as he shall have offended in matters of faith; but he is a heretic who, having disregarded the authority of the Church, maintains impious opinions with pertinacity. Since, therefore, it is impossible that anyone be infected with the contagion of heresy, so long as he holds what this Article proposes to be believed, let pastors use every diligence that the faithful, having known this mystery and guarded against the wiles of Satan, may persevere in the true faith...

... But with regard to the rest, however wicked and evil they may be, it is certain that they still belong to the Church: Of this the faithful are frequently to be reminded, in order to be convinced that, were even the lives of her ministers debased by crime, they are still within the Church, and therefore lose nothing of their power. ...

I will attempt to summarize what the Church teaches regarding the article of faith "I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH" found in the Apostles Creed.

a. As noted by Pius XII the Church is called the body of Christ
b.The one Church consists of two parts: Triumphant and Militant.
c. The members of the Church militant include both the good and the bad, the profess the same faith, partake of the same Sacraments.

In answer to the unavoidable cries of heresy in the hierarchy, please consider the following points:

1. There is a difference between explicitly denying a truth of the faith with pertinacity and holding an opinion that is erroneous or smelling/tasting of heresy.
2. No one here has the authority to canonically admonish anyone in the hierarchy

d. Only God knows the internal dispositions, so we are obliged to obey the hierarchy regarding the authority of the position and the nature of the command as opposed to simply the outward appearances.  (For a deeper understanding of this I recommend the Summa)

The section also contains this passage which re-emphasizes the visibility of the Church:

The Church... includes within her fold the good and the bad; and it was in this sense that St. Paul spoke of one body and one spirit. Thus understood, the Church is known and is compared to a city built on a mountain, and visible from every side. As all must yield obedience to her authority, it is necessary that she may-be known by all.

e. The Church has One Lord, one faith, and one baptism.  Focusing on the Lord (Unity in Government) we have:

The Church has but one ruler and one governor, the invisible one, Christ, whom the eternal Father hath made head over all the Church, which is his body; the visible one, the Pope, who, as legitimate successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, fills the Apostolic chair. ...
 A visible Church requires a visible head; therefore the Saviour appointed Peter head and pastor of all the faithful, when He committed to his care the feeding of all His sheep, in such ample terms that He willed the very same power of ruling and governing the entire Church to descend to Peter's successors. (For a deeper treatment on the link between the visibility of the Church and occupant of the See of Peter - please review the documents of the First Vatican Council)

f. The church is called holy.

she is consecrated and dedicated to God; for so other things when set apart and dedicated to the worship of God were wont to be called holy, even though they were material.
...
The Church is also to be called holy because she is united to her holy Head, as His body; that is, to Christ the Lord,' the fountain of all holiness, from whom flow the graces of the Holy Spirit and the riches of the divine bounty.

This is then, a quick summary of how the Church understands the meaning of the article: I Believe in the Holy Catholic Church.


Archbishop Lefebvre vs this Article of Faith
A number of people have commented that I am placing Archbishop Lefebvre at odds with Church Teaching.  Having read the points, I would state that I would rather believe myself mistaken in understanding his meaning, than believe Archbishop Lefebvre in error on such a fundamental point of the faith.

The root issue appears to be: Did Archbishop Lefebvre believe the 'conciliar Church' to be something separate from the Holy Roman Catholic Church from a structural point of view as opposed to an orientation.

While a number of posters have quoted 'this new Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church', they ignore the statement that comes a number of sentences earlier in the same paragraph: "It is the whole new orientation of the Church, which is no longer a Catholic orientation..."

Based on this, I conclude that Archbishop Lefebvre was not contravening this article of the creed. In referring to the plethora of other quotes, I would refer to this in support of my assertion. 

Bishop Williamson vs this Article of Faith
Due to my biases, I am unequipped to defend Bishop Williamson and given his methods I am definitely not inclined to do so.  Looking at EC281 we find the following passage:

VARIOUS “CHURCHES”...“Conciliar Church” means the God-centred Catholic Church as fallen and still falling under the sway of the man-centred Second Vatican Council. Conciliarism (the distilled error of Vatican II) bears the same relation to the true Church of Christ as the rot of a rotten apple bears to the apple which it is rotting. Just as rot occupies the apple, depends on the apple, cannot exist without the apple, yet is quite different from the apple (as uneatable is different from eatable), so man-centred Conciliarism so occupies Christ’s Church that little of the Church is not more or less rotten, yet Conciliarism is so different from Catholicism that one can truly say that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church. But the Catholic Church is visible. Isn’t the Conciliar Church also visible ?
“Visible Church” means all the buildings, officials and people of the Church that we can see with our eyes. But to say that the Catholic Church is visible, therefore the visible Church is the Catholic Church, is as foolish as to say that all lions are animals so all animals are lions. That part alone of the visible Church is Catholic which is one, holy, universal and apostolic. The rest is various sorts of rot.
“Official Church” means the Church as led by, and following, its visible officials. Since these today are largely Conciliar, so the “official Church” is largely Conciliar and not Catholic, according to the four Marks. Similarly “Mainstream Church”means today’s official Church as opposed to the “Traditionalist” remnant. However, let nobody say there is nothing one, holy, universal or apostolic left in the mainstream Church, any more than everything in the “Traditionalist” remnant shows forth the four Marks. Wheat and chaff are always mixed in Christ’s Church (cf. Mt. XIII, 24-30).

The conclusion that I draw from this EC is that Bishop Williamson:
a. Does not believe that the 'bad' people are part of the Church
b. Consequently, that only part of the visible Church is Catholic

This contravenes in an explicit manner the Teaching of the Church. 

Fr. Laisney has a similar opinion on this EC.

We could go on ad-nauseum quoting Archbishop Lefebvre in-context and out of context. The point is not trying to expose whether or not Bishop Williamson is agreeing with the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, it is whether or not Bishop Williamson is agreeing with Church Teaching.

I will put it this way:

If you believe that what Bishop Williamson states in EC281 means the following:
That the One Holy Roman Catholic Church is only part of the Visible Church, then you are in error.

If Bishop Williamson believes the above statement then he is also in error.

If Archbishop Lefebvre believed it, then he was also in error.