What is indefectibility? And what are the 'Gates of Hell'? Chapter I of 'Spotless and Unsullied'
In this first chapter, we consider the extent and implications of the indefectibility of the Church.
In this first chapter, we consider the extent and implications of the indefectibility of the Church.
Introduction
This is Chapter I of my latest “book” ‘Spotless and Unsullied’ – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy. This chapter deals with the doctrine of indefectibility itself – before proceeding, in later chapters, to examine other interpretations in light of it.
This chapter covers the following topics:
Chapter I: The Indefectibility of the Church
The doctrine of indefectibility
Indefectibility, the Church and the Catholic religion
‘Immaculate’ and ‘unsullied’
The principle of indefectibility
Conclusion
Spotless and Unsullied is Part III of my response to Fr Thomas Crean OP’s article “A City Set on a Hill Cannot Be Hidden: The Perpetual Visibility of the Catholic Church Under the Pope.” Peter Kwasniewski described Fr Crean’s article as “a definitive rebuttal of sedevacantism, at the level of first principles.”
The two previous parts may be found here:
‘Radically insufficient’ – Reply to Fr Crean on the Church’s visibility
‘Zero Marks’ – Why the Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Catholic Church
Although Spotless and Unsullied builds on the previous two parts, and the various “ancillary” articles published since I began this response, it can be read independently of them.
How we are publishing Spotless and Unsullied
Although Fr Crean only published a short and popular article against “sedevacantism”, it contained many points that need to be addressed. I am grateful to him for prompting this response, which has ranged over many different topics.
Spotless and Unsullied is not as long as Zero Marks (the previous part), but it is still very long and detailed for a single article – running to nearly 26,000, including notes (which contain a lot of interesting material).
For this reason, I will again be making it available first for WM+ members, and then releasing each of the four chapters separately for all readers over the coming weeks.
Substantial work of this length and depth is only possible thanks to those who subscribe to WM+, to whom we are very grateful.
If you would like to read the whole essay immediately, sign up to WM+ plus today:
Other resources
I discussed this chapter with Stephen Kokx over at Integrity Magazine.
A video playlist of interviews on these studies with Stephen Kokx may be found here:
Readers are also advised to consult the treatment of this topic in the many works of ecclesiology available, as well as Fr Damien Dutertre ICR’s study on the same topic:
Fr Damien Dutertre ICR: On the Indefectibility of the Church
Chapter I: The Indefectibility of the Church
The doctrine of indefectibility
When Our Lord promised the Primacy to St Peter, he said:
“[T]hou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matt. 16.18)
And between his resurrection and Ascension, he said to his Apostles:
“[B]ehold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” (Matt. 28.20)
These words form part of the Scriptural argument for the indefectibility of the Church.
But in this article, I shall not provide proofs for this indefectibility; I am assuming that all parties to this discussion accept this truth of the Catholic faith. Instead, let us begin by considering what this indefectibility entails.
The theologian Fr J.V. de Groot OP explains the Church’s indefectibility as follows:
“Indefectibility is the quality or property of the Church given to the Church by Christ, by which it will remain in that unchanged state until the end of time, just as Christ has founded it.
“The definition includes: [1] the existence of the Church never to be interrupted; [2] the identity of being, in regard to all things which pertain to the essence of the Church; [3] the perennial visibility of the Church, since we have proven that visibility pertains to the essence of the Church.”1
We have already explained in Radically Insufficient that an extensive obscuration of the Church does not contradict the perennial visibility of the Church; and that, in fact, this perennial visibility would be destroyed if the hypothesis that the Conciliar/Synodal Church is the Catholic Church were to be true.2
It is common, in our day, for the Church’s indefectibility to be reduced to her perpetuity. The theologian Fr E. Sylvester Berry explains the distinction between the two concepts:
“[I]ndefectibility is inability to fail, to fall short, to perish. Applied to the Church, it means that she cannot be deprived of any essential power or quality so long as she continues to exist. Perpetuity is indefectibility of existence.
“Strictly speaking, indefectibility pertains to the essential qualities of the Church, perpetuity, to her existence.
“These two attributes, though really distinct, are so closely related that it is difficult to treat them separately. If the Church is indefectible in her essential qualities and perpetual in her existence, she must be perpetually indefectible in all essential qualities. Therefore, the two attributes may be combined as perpetual indefectibility.”3
Fr Berry continues, emphasising the preservation of the Church’s essential attributes and properties:
“The proposed thesis does not determine the attributes and properties of the Church; it simply states that, whatever they may be, the Church can never lose a single one of them, nor fail in her existence. In other words, it means that the Church founded by Christ must exist until the end of time without any essential change.”4
In fact, for the Church to lose a single essential property or attribute would be to “fail in her existence.” It is like a square which loses one side: the shape ceases to be a square.
The theologian Fr Joachim Salaverri SJ states explicitly that the “essential qualities” in which the Church is indefectible include the four properties of the Creed:
“[I]t is an Article of divine and Catholic Faith to be professed by all that the Church necessarily and indefectibly is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.”5
Fr Berry also provides examples of accidental changes, which are not excluded by indefectibility – such as the erection and suppression of various institutions, the development of rites, certain changes to laws and disciplines, and so on.6
But the differences between the Conciliar/Synodal Church and the pre-conciliar Church are not merely accidental (as discussed in Zero Marks), and as such, the Conciliar/Synodal Church lacks essential properties of the Church. It is therefore not distinctly visible as the Church of Christ, and it is visibly not the Church of Christ. It is a new body, and not “numerically one” with the Church founded by Christ.
So while all parties agree that the Church is perpetually indefectible, they do not agree on whether the Conciliar/Synodal Church is the Church.
With this re-stated, let us consider another aspect of the Church’s indefectibility. which extends further than both her perpetual existence and the retention of the four marks and properties.
Indefectibility, the Church and the Catholic religion
A “religion”, according to the theologian Fr Michaele Nicolau SJ, is “a complex of truths, duties and rites, whereby man is bound to God.”7 The three heads he mentions as making up the notion of religion – “truth, duties and rites” – correspond to doctrine (what is believed), discipline (the way of life enjoined), and liturgy (the worship offered). Fr Damien Dutertre ICR draws this out further in his chapter on indefectibility:
“Any religion is characterized by a threefold aspect: it teaches a system of philosophy or belief (‘doctrine’), it indicates a way of life (‘discipline’), and it prescribes some form of worship of God (‘liturgy’).”
“The Catholic Church has been given authority to teach the true religion revealed by God, and therefore has the authority of Christ in these three aspects, according to these solemn words of Christ, which end the Gospel of St. Matthew:
“‘Going therefore, teach ye all nations [DOCTRINE]; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost [LITURGY]. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you [DISCIPLINE]: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. (Mt. XXVIII, 19-20).’”8
The Catholic Church is the sole divinely-appointed bearer of the true religion in the world. This means that her doctrine is true, her disciplines are safe and conducive to the salvation of souls, and her liturgical rites are fitted to bring glory to God. Such is the teaching of Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Satis Cognitum:
“It is then undoubtedly the office of the Church to guard Christian doctrine and to propagate it in its integrity and purity. But this is not all: the object for which the Church has been instituted is not wholly attained by the performance of this duty. For, since Jesus Christ delivered Himself up for the salvation of the human race, and to this end directed all His teaching and commands, so He ordered the Church to strive, by the truth of its doctrine, to sanctify and to save mankind.
“But faith alone cannot compass so great, excellent, and important an end. There must needs be also the fitting and devout worship of God, which is to be found chiefly in the divine Sacrifice and in the dispensation of the Sacraments, as well as salutary laws and discipline.
“All these must be found in the Church, since it continues the mission of the Savior forever.”9 (Emphases added)
So much for what comprises a religion. The fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, cited by Vatican I, declared that the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate in the Apostolic See, “in which the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion resides”:
“The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith [...]. And because it is impossible to ignore those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Mt 16:18], what was said has been proved by the facts, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate and sacred doctrine honored.
“Therefore, wishing not to be separated in any way from this faith and doctrine [...], we hope to deserve to be in the one communion, which the Apostolic See proclaims and in which the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion resides.”10
The theologian Mgr Gerard Van Noort summarises all this as follows:
“[I]f the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ, it doubtless has in its possession the religion of Christ, genuine and unsullied.”11
The first consequence of all this is that the Church must always maintain and propose the true religion, and that this also pertains to her indefectibility. This necessity is also bound up with the attribute of infallibility: in a kind of interdependence of causes, the Church is indefectible so that she may infallibly propose the true religion. On the other hand, her infallibility means that she will never defect, at least in terms of proposing the true religion, or erring in faith or morals. If this proposition were to fail, or if she were to commit herself to falsehoods in faith or morals, this would be evidence that the Church had defected – which is impossible.
In short, the Church’s indefectibility means that the religion which she proposes cannot undergo a substantial rupture with the one which she has received from the Apostles.
Fr Nicolau explains that any religion which “contains errors”, or carries out “incorrectly the fundamental and essential dependence of man on a personal God”, is a false religion.12 This is so, even if it is “mostly true […] since ‘any defect makes something bad’”.13 As the axiom states, bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu.14
Further, “[a] substantial rupture in doctrine, discipline and liturgy,” writes Abbé Damien Dutertre ICR, “shows a substantial change of religion”.15 A religion which authoritatively preaches even one false doctrine, enjoins even one harmful discipline universally, or whose liturgy is not fitted to bring glory to God, is by that very fact a new religion – and therefore a false religion. As Louis Cardinal Billot wrote:
“[I]t is impossible that a religion should be truly called holy which possesses even a single dogma, whether speculative or practical, that is repugnant to holiness.”16
But since the one true religion is immutable, the result of any such substantial change would necessarily result in a false religion, which would separate itself from the indefectible Church.
‘Immaculate’ and ‘unsullied’
The second consequence is derived from the sense of the words “immaculate” and “unsullied”, which convey both purity and therefore the absence of admixture with anything else.
The Church does not just “possess” the true religion as one possibility present within her. Proposing, or even tolerating, a “false religion” within her bounds is precluded by at least the necessary properties of unity, holiness and apostolicity.17 And since these necessary properties pertain to the Church’s essence, indefectibility means that she will always and only preach the true religion of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
It will not do, therefore, to say that sound doctrine, worship and discipline are merely “found in the Church”, (as Pope Leo XIII indeed says in Satis Cognitum,) if the term found is taken to mean found alongside officially promulgated or tolerated false doctrine, harmful laws and unfitting rites. Contrary to the words of Roberto de Mattei, no “Bergoglian religion” can “cohabitate” in the Church with the Catholic religion – even “in a confused and fragmentary way.”18 The Church’s doctrine, discipline and liturgy are indefectibly of the true religion. Anything less offends against the properties of holiness, unity and apostolicity – and therefore, indefectibility.
Therefore, both a substantial change in religion and the presence of more than one religion in the Church are precluded by her indefectibility.19
The principle of indefectibility
Now that we have considered what indefectibility entails – and what it excludes – we can return to Our Lord’s words to St Peter, and how they have been understood by the Church built upon him.
As we saw at the beginning, Christ promised that he would found his Church on St Peter – “this rock” – and that “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16.18). Before his crucifixion, he said the following to St Peter, distinguishing between him and the other Apostles:
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you [vos – plural; referring to the Apostles], that he may sift you [not in the Latin] as wheat. But I have prayed for thee [te – singular; St Peter], that thy [tua – singular] faith fail not: and thou [tu – singular], being once converted, confirm thy [tuos – singular] brethren.” (Luke 22.31–2)
The First Vatican Council authoritatively interpreted this passage, explaining that Christ prayed for St Peter and his successors, and the reason for this prayer:
“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that they might disclose a new doctrine by his revelation, but rather that, with his assistance, they might reverently guard and faithfully explain the revelation or deposit of faith that was handed down through the apostles.
“Indeed, it was this apostolic doctrine that all the Fathers held and the holy orthodox Doctors reverenced and followed, fully realizing that this See of St. Peter always remains untainted by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples: ‘But I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren’ [Lk 22:32].
“Now this charism of truth and of never-failing faith was conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair in order that they might perform their supreme office for the salvation of all; that by them the whole flock of Christ might be kept away from the poisonous bait of error and be nourished by the food of heavenly doctrine; that, the occasion of schism being removed, the whole Church might be preserved as one and, resting on her foundation, might stand firm against the gates of hell.”20
In other words, this “never-failing faith” was was conferred upon St Peter for the sake of protecting the indefectibility of the Church. This is why various Popes have taught that the indefectibility of the Church depends upon the Papacy. For example, Pope Pius VII taught:
“From these events men should realize that all attempts to overthrow the ‘House of God’ are in vain. For this is the Church founded on Peter, ‘Rock,’ not merely in name but in truth. Against this ‘the gates of hell will not prevail’ [Mt 16:18] ‘for it is founded on a rock’ [Mt 7:25; Lk 6:48].
“There has never been an enemy of the Christian religion who was not simultaneously at wicked war with the See of Peter, since while this See remained strong the survival of the Christian religion was assured.”21
Pope Pius IX taught the same:
“[R]eligion itself can never totter and fall while this Chair remains intact, the Chair which rests on the rock which the proud gates of hell cannot overthrow and in which there is the whole and perfect solidity of the Christian religion.”22
Although the indefectibility of the Church is established in part on Our Lord’s words to all the Apostles – “I am with you all days” – his words to St Peter show that he is “with” him and his successors in a special and particular way. As the theologian Fr Domenico Palmieri SJ wrote:
“[I]t is necessary that if Christ is to be always with the Apostles, He must also be always specially with Peter.”23
It is this “being-with”, as Mgr Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers put it, that is the basis of the authority of the Roman Pontiff, and thus of the indefectibility of the Church.24
The phrase “gates of hell” appears elsewhere in Holy Scripture: in Isaias, King Ezechias uses it as a metaphor for death (Is. 38.10), and Roman liturgical texts use it in the same sense. As such, the “gates of hell”, which Our Lord decreed “shall not prevail” over the Church, refer not only to false doctrine,25 but also to the failure, defection of the Church, as discussed above – which would constitute a kind of “death”.26
And as the Word Incarnate said that the gates of hell shall not prevail, such a failure is impossible. Citing Origen, Pope Leo XIII explains the meaning of this promise:
“The meaning of this divine utterance is, that, notwithstanding the wiles and intrigues which they bring to bear against the Church, it can never be that the church committed to the care of Peter shall succumb or in any wise fail. ‘For the Church, as the edifice of Christ who has wisely built His house upon a rock,’ cannot be conquered by the gates of Hell, which may prevail over any man who shall be off the rock and outside the Church, but shall be powerless against it”. Therefore God confided His Church to Peter so that he might safely guard it with his unconquerable power.”27
We have already seen that what would constitute a “failure” or defection is considerably wider than many today assume.
Conclusion
The indefectibility of the Church, built upon St Peter, excludes the possibility that the Church could suffer a substantial change in her religion, or that she could tolerate the presence of more than one religion within her bounds. The Papacy was specifically instituted by Christ to exclude such aberrations.
A body which has undergone any “substantial change” in its religion would not be the Catholic Church. A body in which there is more than one religion is also not the Catholic Church.
And yet the “official” religion of the Conciliar/Synodal Church is indeed substantially different to the Catholic religion, as is shown in parts of Zero Marks and demonstrated below:
And this body does indeed include multiple religions with in its bounds, as admitted by some of our opponents, and as follows from the above and the discussion in Zero Marks – particularly Chapter I:
Zero Marks, Introduction, and Chapter I: Unity
The Conciliar/Synodal Church therefore cannot be said to enjoy the attribute of indefectibility, is not the Catholic Church, and demonstrably lacks the effect for which Christ instituted the Papacy. If it were to be the Catholic Church, or if its “popes” had been true successors of St Peter, then the Gates of Hell would have prevailed. But this is impossible; therefore it is not the Catholic Church, and they have not been true Roman Pontiffs.
Having established what indefectibility entails, let us examine these conclusions further by turning to Fr Crean’s treatment of indefectibility in his arguments against “sedevacantism”.
End of Chapter I
Spotless and Unsullied addresses the doctrine of indefectibility, and its implications for our current crisis, in four chapters.
We have first published it in full for WM+ members, and will be releasing each chapter separately for all readers.
Here is what is covered in the next chapters:
Chapter II: Fr Crean’s doctrinal exposition considered
Fr Crean’s doctrinal exposition of indefectibility
The Faith
The Sacraments
The Hierarchy
How to identify the ChurchChapter III: Indefectibility and an Extended Vacancy
Abductive reasoning
What indefectibility does not prevent: A falling away, and an extended vacancy
The effect of an extended vacancy
An extended vacancy is possibleChapter IV: Fr Crean’s objection answered
Objection: A circumstance in which an extended vacancy could constitute a defection
The continuity of the hierarchy
The right of election
Post-Script: Did the New Testament warn us?Conclusion
Subscribe to WM+ now to access the whole of Spotless and Unsullied:
‘Spotless and Unsullied’ – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy
Priests, religious and seminarians can contact us for free membership and full access.
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!
Read Next:
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
Twitter (The WM Review)
Fr J. Vincenz de Groot OP, Summa apologetica de Ecclesia Catholica ad mentem S. Thomae Aquinatis, . G.J. Manze, Ratisbon, 1890. Question VIII, Article I [30], p. 116 in the English text translated by Bishop Donald J. Sanborn, 2025. Available upon request and for a donation from Most Holy Trinity Seminary.
De Groot also poses and answers the following objections:
Instance. Concerning the end of the world we read we read in Matthew XXIV: 24: “For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.” Likewise in Luke XVIII: 8: “I say to you, that he will quickly revenge them. But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?” Saint Paul teaches that the day of the Lord is not imminent “unless there come a revolt first.” (II Thess II: 3) The Church, therefore, because in the end it will defect, is not indefectible.
Response. I distinguish the antecedent. By these testimonies there is predicted a very great persecution of the Church, I concede; the destruction of the Church, I deny. I will respond to each of the allegations.
[a] Many will be drawn into error by the marvels of the false Christs, I concede; the universal Church, I deny. The words of Christ that have been cited were said by way of a certain exaggeration; but the Elect, as the text itself shows, will not defect.
[b] Concerning what is objected from St. Luke, I distinguish: These things pertain to perfect faith, I concede; to faith simpliciter, I deny. Saint Bede the Venerable said: “So great will be the rarity of the Elect, that not so much because of the clamor of the faithful but more by the lukewarmness of the others will the ruin of the whole world be accelerated.”
These things must be understood, however, in relation to perfect faith, and not absolutely, since Saint Augustine said: “He, however, who should have the faith like the mustard seed, by which also the mountains are moved, are indeed very rare. Concerning such a faith the Lord said: ‘But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?’” (Contra Gaud. II, 6) Cf. St. Thomas in Catena Aurea in the place of the quoted verse.
[c] The revolt or apostasy which Saint Paul predicts is the apostasy of everyone, I deny; of many, I concede. St. Thomas says: “It would happen that the Faith be received by the whole world…, and after this many will defect from the Faith. Matth. XXIV: 12: ‘The charity of many shall grow cold.’ (In Ep. II ad Thess. chap II, lect. 1) […]
“Objection III. It is not contradictory that the Church, with regard to the number of its members and many other things is so severely diminished, that no aspect of it is evident. But if this should happen, the visible Church ceases. So it is not contradictory to say that at least the visible Church defects.
“Response. I distinguish the major. It can happen that the accidental appearance of the Church be diminished, I concede; essential, I deny. It is plainly apparent, from what has been said concerning the marks and visibility of the Church, that catholicity as well as visibility cannot be taken away from the Church. Nor can the visibility of the Church be taken away even under the cruelty of persecutors. Saint Augustine said this: ‘Moreover it behooved that this same vine should be pruned in accordance with the Lord’s repeated predictions, and that the unfruitful twigs should be cut out of it, by which heresies and schisms were occasioned in various localities, under the name of Christ, on the part of men who sought not His glory but their own; whose oppositions, however, also served more and more to discipline the Church, and to test and illustrate both its doctrine and its patience.’ (De catechiz. rudibus, chapter XXIV)”
Ibid., pp. 118–120.
Needless to say, I accept Fr de Groot’s explanations here, and hold that I have explained our current situation in conformity with them in Radically Insufficient and Zero Marks, as well as indicated where the opposing explanations fall foul of them.
Rev E. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, pp. 29–30. Mount St Mary’s Seminary, 1955, published now by Wipf and Stock Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 2009.
Ibid., p. 32.
Joachim Salaverri, ‘On the Church of Christ,’ in Sacrae Theologia Summa IB, n. 1153. trans. Kenneth Baker SJ , Keep the Faith, 2015.
If the existing situation was not already enough, the Conciliar/Synodal Church is pursuing a policy of synodality, which entails a redefinition of authority, such that it is no longer monarchical in the sense established by Christ.
Cf. McCusker & Wright, ‘The Bishop of Rome’: Francis’ plan, continued by Leo XIV, for a grotesque parody of the papacy, 22 August 2025, available at https://www.wmreview.org/p/the-bishop-of-rome-francis-plan-continued
Fr Berry writes:
“It should be noted that indefectibility does not exclude such accidental changes as are incidental to growth and development, nor those necessary to adapt the Church to her surroundings. As the Church increases in numbers and extent, new agencies are needed to cope with her increased activities. For this purpose archdioceses and patriarchates were introduced, religious orders established, schools and other institutions founded. Rites and ceremonies, the celebration of feasts, the laws of fasting and abstinence, and other disciplinary regulations may be changed to suit the needs of time and place. These are all accidental changes which prove that the Church is a living organism that ‘can keep its identity without losing its life, and keep its life without losing its identity; that can enlarge its teachings without changing them; that can always be the same, and yet always developing.’”
Berry, p. 30.
Nicolau defines religion as follows:
“[T]he whole idea of religion is based on this relation of dependence of man on God.
“But since man is an intellectual being, included in the moral order, which he must follow freely with his acts of intellect and will: that ontological relation to God requires that man be joined to God with the bonds of intellect and will, and not just according to one faculty but according to all of them. This moral bond, namely, with the activity of the intellect and will, joining the whole man to God—this is what we call ‘religion.’ […]
“If religion is considered objectively, or in itself, it is a complex of truths, duties and rites, whereby man is bound to God and in practice acknowledges His supreme excellence and dominion.”
Michaele Nicolau SJ, Sacrae Theologiae Summa IA (Introduction to Theology), Part II, nn. 5, 6. Trans. By Kenneth Baker SJ, Keep the Faith, USA 2015.
Fr Damien Dutertre ICR, The Thesis, Chapter I: On the Indefectibility of the Church, n. 4.
Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cogntium, n. 9. 1896.
Henry Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum [DH], n. 3066. 43rd edition, ed. Peter Hünermann, Robert Fastiggi and Anne Englund Nash, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2012.
Mgr. G. Van Noort, ‘Christ’s Church’, Dogmatic Theology II, p. 85. Newman Press, Maryland 1957.
“[R]eligion is divided into true and false, according as it carries out correctly or incorrectly the fundamental and essential dependence of man on a personal God.
“But the religion that is fundamentally, or as to its substance, true, can be less correct or false inasmuch as it contains errors about other religious questions (v.gr., the Protestant religion errs about religious authority and the use of the sacraments); and since ‘any defect makes something bad,’ such a religion is said to be false.”
Nicolau, Part II, n. 8.
Ibid.
“Something is good when it is good in every respect, and it is bad when it is wrong in any respect.”
Dutertre, n. 5.
It should go without saying that what constitutes a “substantial rupture” will vary according to each aspect mentioned. Any substantial rupture on a point of doctrine is understood as an error, and an error is also a substantial rupture with doctrine.
On the other hand, the Church’s universal disciplinary laws can, have and do change without constituting a “rupture” in the sense meant. For such laws, the “rupture” would be with the principle of the infallible safety of the Church’s universal disciplines, and would arise if the Church were to enjoin, as a universal law, that which is harmful to souls.
Liturgy, occupying a space between both doctrine and universal disciplinary laws, would suffer a substantial rupture in similar ways to those two aspects: if it were to contain or propose doctrinal error, or if it were to be harmful to souls.
Still in n. 5, Fr Dutertre proceeds to explain how substantial changes in these “essential elements of a religion” necessarily violate the four properties of the Church discussed in the previous part. He writes:
“This is true because (1) these are the essential elements of a religion. Hence if they change substantially, then the religion itself has substantially changed. This is also true, because (2) such a rupture would contradict the four marks of the true Church of Christ. Let us prove this for each mark.
a. A substantial rupture of doctrine, discipline or liturgy would mean that in one or in all of these three essential elements (doctrine, discipline, liturgy) the Church would have lost her unity over time. Either the doctrine professed today would not be identical with the doctrine professed in the past; or the discipline would not be identical and one with that of the past; or the liturgy practiced today would not be identical and one with that of the past. In any and all of these cases, a substantial change involves the loss of the mark of unity.
b. Similarly a substantial rupture in doctrine, discipline and liturgy would contradict the mark of holiness of the Catholic Church. For if a doctrine of faith is changed, this change indicates that this doctrine was false, either before or after the change, or both. This means that, at some point, adhesion to falsehood was given as a criterion for membership in the true Church. That adherence to falsehood and error be made a criterion of membership in the true Church is repugnant to the mark of holiness and cannot be accepted. Similarly, in discipline and liturgy, that which was intrinsically evil cannot become intrinsically good, and vice versa. But such would be the implication of a substantial change of discipline and liturgy, that is, not one made because of a change of external circumstances, but a change of judgment concerning the very nature of an action. Thus if the worship of false gods is intrinsically evil at one point of time, it was, it is, and it will always be so.
c. A substantial rupture in either doctrine, discipline and liturgy, would also contradict the mark of catholicity, by which the Church embraces all peoples and nations in space and time. For the men of today would not share the same religion with the men of yesterday.
d. Lastly, it is manifest that a substantial rupture in doctrine, discipline or liturgy would contradict the mark of apostolicity, since it would be impossible to thus maintain that the same doctrine, discipline and liturgy has been handed from the Apostles down to us today.
Louis Cardinal Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, Tomus Prior, p. 174. Prati ex Officina Libraria Giachetti, Filii et soc, 1909. Text translated by Fr Julian Larrabee. Available here: https://archive.org/details/tractatusdeeccle01bill/page/174/mode/1up).
Fr Dutertre adds that they would also be contrary to the property of catholicity:
“A substantial rupture in either doctrine, discipline and liturgy, would also contradict the mark of catholicity, by which the Church embraces all peoples and nations in space and time. For the men of today would not share the same religion with the men of yesterday.”
Dutertre, n. 5.
Roberto de Mattei, Love for the Papacy & Filial Resistance to the Pope in the History of the Church, p. 138. Angelico Press, New York, 2019.
It might be objected that Jansenism existed within the Church as an additional religion for some time, or that this example undermines the presentation above. I respond to this with Billot’s comments, which should make the necessary distinctions clear:
“Someone may object again: In the time of the Jansenist heresy there were many bishops openly appealing from the Bull Unigenitus to other earlier or later Pontifical Constitutions which were accepted in the whole Church. These men therefore were notorious heretics. Notwithstanding this, they were still held to be true bishops having communion with the Apostolic See, and in fact still true members of the Church. Therefore it is false that heresy — even notorious heresy — puts someone outside the body of the Church.
“I respond that the Jansenists were ferocious beyond all other heretics in using all manner of tricks to escape the anathemas of the Church, and lied about everything so that they could spread the disease of their heresy more effectively. So it is not surprising if, through such great cunning and trickery, the notoriety of the heresy of certain men did not appear sufficiently evident among their fellows. But we should distinguish between opposition to the pontifical constitutions on the grounds of the dogmatic fact about the meaning of the book of Jansenius, and opposition to the constitutions which directly defined Catholic doctrine.
“Those who insidiously claimed that the condemnation of the propositions should be accepted, but that they were falsely attributed to Jansenius, were not yet notorious heretics on this account. The reason is that even though it is most certain that the Church is infallible in defining dogmatic facts, and likewise it is most certain that there is an obligation to adhere to a definition with internal assent of the mind and not just with a respectful silence, nevertheless these definitions are either not exactly definitions of faith, or at least are not yet sufficiently known to be such. For even apart from the fact that it is still disputed by theologians whether it be de fide whether the Church is infallible in giving these judgments, it is disputed most of all about the type of assent which is owed to them: namely whether one must give the assent of divine faith, to which alone heresy is opposed, or only the assent of what they call ecclesiastical faith. So someone cannot yet be called a notorious heretic who resists these, even though he does not escape the guilt of a most grievous sin, and is known to be at least extremely close to heresy.
“But now, after those few “appealing” bishops went even further and began to reject the constitution Unigenitus which had been received in the Church with unanimous consent as a rule of faith, and rejected it openly and pertinacious and without ambiguity, then their heresy also began to be notorious; but from that moment they also ceased to be considered true and legitimate bishops. In fact, they were explicitly denounced, as the times required, as being outside the Catholic communion, as the acts of the Council of [Embrun] made certain, and especially the Bull Pastoralis Officii of Clement XI.”
(Billot, pp. 296–7. Text translated by Fr Julian Larrabee. Available here: https://archive.org/details/tractatusdeeccle01bill/page/296/mode/1up)
While there might be certain superficial similarities, a key difference is that the Church and her hierarchy were actively taking steps against the Jansenists, and progressively closing the avenues by which they could claim their deviations were orthodox; whereas in our day, it is the putative hierarchy that is advancing its new religion. Further, the dispute turned around definitions of dogmatic facts.
Needless to say, while a single error is sufficient to constitute a substantial rupture or a new religion, this refers to a single error authoritatively taught or tolerated; it does not refer to theological disputes conducted in submission to the Holy See, prior to the latter deeming the question to have sufficiently matured and ready to be resolved. For example, no one would claim that the Jesuits and the Dominicans adhered to different religions due to their differing positions on the question of grace, even though at least one school of thought must be in error. Such examples are different in kind to what we see in the Novus Ordo religion, which teaches doctrines previously condemned as errors, enjoins disciplines previously condemned as harmful, and offers a mutilated and deficient rite of worship.
DH nn. 3070–3071.
Pope Pius VII, Encyclical Diu Satis, n. 6, 1800. With thanks to Novus Ordo Watch for assembling this texts and related texts mentioned here, in the article ‘Have the Gates of Hell Prevailed? The Papacy and Sedevacantism’, 27 Dec 2015.
Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Inter Multiplices, n. 7
“[…] Christ, addressing all the Apostles, promises that He will always be with them — with them, that is, insofar as they were endowed with divine rights – i.e., He promises that He will always remain protecting their rights, and that the social state which was constituted by those rights will always endure. Now, among the Apostles was also Peter, endowed with the Primacy; therefore the Primacy of Peter also must be perpetual. […]
“You will object: the rights proper to the individual Apostles’ Apostolate ceased with them; why then should not the Primacy of Peter also cease? I respond: (a) Christ addresses all the Apostles together; whence He promises that those rights will be perpetual which pertain to the body of the Apostles, not to individuals.
“Now, those singular prerogatives of the Apostles did not pertain to the body. But the Primacy of Peter did pertain to the body of the Apostles itself; for it was the principle of unity of the apostolic body, which was brought back to unity on account of it. If, therefore, all the rights of that body must remain, and the same state must endure, the right of the Primacy also must be perpetual. (b) The difference is further that the power conferred on each of the other Apostles individually was not specifically different from the power of the same Apostles taken together, nor was it, as found in individuals, necessary to the Church; wherefore, even when those special prerogatives ceased, the same rights remained in the Church and the same state endured.
“But if the Primacy of Peter had ceased, a certain right — and indeed a principal one — which existed in that body of the Apostles, insofar as it existed in their head, would have ceased, and the same social state, by which the body of the Apostles was held together, would no longer have endured. And so it is necessary that if Christ is to be always with the Apostles, He must also be always specially with Peter.
Fr Domenico Palmieri SJ, Tractatus de Romano Pontifice: cum prolegomeno de ecclesia, p. 392–3. Prati, Ex Officina Libraria Giachetti, Filii et Soc., 1891.
This concept of Christ’s “being with” St Peter forms a central part of Mgr Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers’ “Cassiciacum Thesis”: it is the absence of this “being with” in the post-conciliar claimants that renders them not the Popes formally. An article summarising the Cahiers de Cassiciacum explains it as follows:
“The Authority of Christ over the Church”: the origin of Authority over the Church proceeds from the “being with” [être avec] of Christ, who “is with” the pope. (CC 1, p. 37 § 3 to p. 39 § 1) As the pope is only the Vicar (substitute, deputy) of Christ, it is the communication of Authority over the Church by Christ that constitutes the Authority of the pope. The elected cannot receive this communication from Christ if he does not habitually have the intention of realising the Good-End of the Church.
“Judgement on Authority”: one cannot judge the internal (private) intention of the elected, nor know his motives. Neither does one judge Authority. The only judgement made is that of affirming that the results of the acts of the elected (acts regularly denounced by many Catholics) are in contradiction with the “being with” of Christ. The finality of the “being with” of Christ must be to realise the Good-End of the Church; if habitually his acts do not realise the Good-End of the Church, then this demonstrates the absence of the “being with” of Christ. One does not therefore judge Authority; one merely observes the facts and concludes its absence.
Further down:
The election disposes the matter
A valid election is one of the material causes necessary to the existence of the pope. Someone who would not be validly elected could not therefore be pope materialiter (and consequently neither be pope formaliter, for if there is not the matter, there cannot be the essence).
The “being with” constitutes the form
The communication of Authority, or of the “being with”, by Christ to the elected is the formal cause of the papacy. It is what constitutes the papacy by giving to it over the Church the triple power involving a triple Authority: of teaching (or of the magisterium), of government, and of sanctification. The elected, when he accepts the communication of Authority by Christ, becomes pope formaliter. If he refuses or places an impediment, he remains simply pope materialiter (thus simply elected) until his acceptance, the annulment of his election, or his death.
The election subsists without the “being with”
When the form disappears or if it is not realised completely, the matter nevertheless continues to exist. For example, in the sacrament of baptism, if the blessing is not said completely, the baptism is not valid, but the water does not disappear for all that. It is the same with the elected. If he does not obtain or if he loses the form of the papacy, he remains a man and he remains the elected. All that constitutes the matter of the papacy continues to exist independently in the elected.
Our translations. Résumé analytique des cahiers de Cassiciacum, accessed 30 May 2026.
The Second Council of Constantinople interprets the “Gates of Hell” as follows:
“These matters having been treated with thorough-going exactness, we bear in mind what was promised about the holy church and him who said that the gates of hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics) […]”
(Second Council of Constantinople, Sentence against the Three Chapters)
Pope St Leo IX also wrote in 1053 AD:
“The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter or Cephas, the son of John who first was called Simon, because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome […]”
(Epistle In terra pax hominibus to Michael Cerularius and to Leo of Achrida, September 2, 1053, in Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 30th edition. Trans. Roy J. Deferrari, n. 351. Loreto Publications, Fitzwilliam, NH.
The great Biblical commentator Fr Cornelius a Lapdie SJ teaches the same:
“The gates of hell, i.e., the infernal city, meaning all hell, with its entire army of demons, and with the whole power of Lucifer its king. For hell and the city of God, i.e., the Church, are here put in opposition.
“When S. Augustine wrote his work de Civitate Dei, in the beginning of which he speaks of the two opposite cities; the one of God which is the Church; the other of the devil, i.e., of demons and wicked men: he takes the gates of hell to mean heresies, and heresiarchs; for they fight against the faith of Peter and the Church, and they proceed from hell and are stirred up by the devil. So S. Epiphanius (in Ancoratu), not far from the beginning.”
(Cornelius à Lapide, The Great Commentary, St Matthew’s Gospel, Vol II (Chaps. X to XXI), pp 222, 223. John Hodges, Covent Garden London, Third Edition, 1889.)
Fr Cornelius à Lapide continues, after the text previously cited:
“Shall not prevail. Heb. lo juchelu la, i.e., shall not be able to stand against it—namely, the Church. So S. Hilary and Maldonatus.
“More simply, shall not prevail, i.e., shall not conquer or overcome, or pull down the Church. For this is the meaning of the original Greek. We have here the figure of speech, miosis: for little is said but much is meant; not only that the Church shall not be conquered, but that she shall conquer and subdue under her all heretics, tyrants, and every other enemy, as she overcame Arians, Nestorians, Pelagians, Nero, Decius, Diocletian, &c. Therefore by this word Christ first animates his Church that she should not be faint hearted when she sees herself attacked by all the power of Satan and wicked men.
“In the second place, He as it were sounds a trumpet for her, that she may always watch with her armour on against so many enemies, who attack her with extreme hatred.
“Thirdly, He promises to her, as well as to her head, Peter, i.e., the Pontiff—victory and triumph over them all. Again, Christ and the Holy Ghost assist with special guidance her head, the Roman Pontiff, that he should not err in matters of faith, but that he may be firm as an adamant, says S. Chrysostom, and that he may rightly administer and rule the Church, and guide it in the path of safety, as Noah also directed the ark that it should not be overwhelmed in the deluge.”
Cornelius à Lapide, p. 223.
Satis Cogntium, n. 12.