The Illusion of Materially Catholic Hierarchy: A Failed Distinction.
Prologue:
I made a pictographic file of an excerpt from my previous article A ‘Catholic Hierarchy Secundum Quid “? A Misleading Illusion with an accompanying tag
“The See is either:
occupied simpliciter
or
vacant simpliciter.”
The excerpt reads:
“if the notion of a “material hierarchy” had any theological validity, it would apply most fittingly… [to the schismatic Greeks]. Yet the Church does not employ such language, nor does she recognize in them any partial or qualified participation in her hierarchical structure.”
While some replies were edifying and confirmatory, some were counter argumentative. It is not clear whether the dissenters argue for the sake of argument, as in playing the devil’s advocate, or are genuinely unable to see through the argument.
Be that as it may, here we must make further clarification on this topical question of the illusion of material hierarchy. This we must to unmask the theological and philosophical failure of the the proposed distinction in question for the edification of those who might be led astray it's seeming principled coherence.
A Confirmatory Comment
A commenter wrote:
Dear Father,
I found this your argument to be sublime:
If the notion of a 'material hierarchy' had any theological validity, it would apply most fittingly to the Eastern Orthodox who have material apostolic succession given valid episcopal orders! No theologian ever dreamed of such a distinction for them!
Such a confirmation is indeed edifying, or is it not?
One would think that this is a conclusive argument only to be forced to face a counter argument which pretends to be itself more decisive.
The Counter Argument
Another commenter weighed in:
I think it would be said in response to the objection that, unlike the Novus Ordo hierarchy, there has been an official declaration that the Greek schismatics have been sentenced as being outside the Church, and thus do not possess a hierarchy materially.
The argument attempts to draw a principled distinction:
- The Greek schismatics have been officially declared outside the Church.
- Therefore, they cannot even possess a hierarchy materialiter.
- By contrast, the Novus Ordo hierarchy has not been formally declared outside the Church.
- Therefore, it may retain a hierarchy at least materially.
At first glance, this appears to introduce a principled difference.
Upon examination, however, it fails; both theologically and philosophically.
Admirably, another commenter stood his guns in showing that if the category “Material Hierarchy” is admitted for the sake of argument, it is so elastic that it loses theological precision:
"Material Hierarchy"
= Catholic Hierarchy Secundum Quid
= Hierarchy In Potency
= Not Hierarchy Now, But Can Be
= Hierarchy Composed of Heretics Now, But Can Become Catholic Hierarchy
= Hierarchy Composed of Non-Catholics Now, But Can Become Catholic Hierarchy
= Novus Ordo Hierarchy
= Eastern Orthodox Hierarchy
==================
The supposed Material Hierarchy or Catholic Hierarchy Secundum Quid
IS NOT
the Catholic Hierarchy
BUT POSSESSES
a material element or disposition of the Catholic: canonical title OR episcopal order! Any material aspect qualifies for the label: Catholic Hierarchy Materialiter
In line with this, let us show how the reasoning in the counter argument fails theologically and philosophically.
The Proposed Distinction
The objection runs thus:
- The Greek schismatics have been officially declared outside the Church.
- Therefore, they cannot be said to possess even a hierarchy materialiter.
But:
- The conciliar (Novus Ordo) hierarchy has not been formally declared outside the Church.
- Therefore, it may still be considered a “Catholic hierarchy secundum quid,” that is, materially.
We must note the following errors:
The Error Concerning Ecclesiastical Declarations
The distinction rests fundamentally on a confusion between declaratory and constitutive acts.
As taught in Mystici Corporis Christi, membership in the Church depends upon:
- profession of the true faith, and
- unity of communion.
A public ecclesiastical declaration does not create separation; it recognizes and juridically establishes a separation already effected.
Therefore:
- The Greeks are not outside the Church because they were declared so.
- They were declared so because they were already outside.
- Consequently, the absence of a similar declaration in another case does not prove continued membership, but only the absence of juridical recognition.
Thus, the proposed distinction collapses at its root.
The Principle of Ecclesial Membership Is the Same in Both Cases
The objection implicitly assumes two different standards:
- One for schismatics (Greeks),
- Another for public heretics (conciliar hierarchy).
But the Church has never admitted such a dual principle.
Both public heresy and schism sever a man from the body of the Church:
- Schism ruptures unity of governance.
- Heresy ruptures unity of faith.
Each, by its nature, excludes from membership.
If, therefore:
- Greek schismatics are outside by reason of schism,
then
- public adherents of doctrinal deviation are outside by reason of heresy.
And this holds independently of any subsequent declaration.
To deny this is to make ecclesial membership depend not on reality, but on administrative acknowledgment.
The decisive principle is public adherence to the Catholic faith; not whether Rome has issued a document acknowledging the rupture.
In this case, Modernist and apostate Rome cannot be expected to issue a document acknowledging its own rupture from Catholic Rome; or can we legitimately expect that? And of what value would such a declaration be to uncompromising Catholics?
The Reduction of “Material Hierarchy” to Absurd Elasticity
If the term “material hierarchy” is admitted, it must be applied consistently.
But then it becomes indistinguishable from:
- validly ordained bishops without jurisdiction,
- external claimants to office,
- or any structure possessing partial elements of Catholicity.
Thus it would equally apply to:
- the Eastern schismatics,
- any separated episcopal body retaining orders,
- and indeed any claimant possessing canonical title or sacramental character.
The result is that:
“Catholic hierarchy secundum quid”
becomes a label for non-Catholic realities possessing fragments of Catholic elements.
Such a term no longer signifies a determinate theological category, but a vague aggregation of analogies.
It therefore fails as a principle of ecclesiology.
Jurisdiction Cannot Be Reduced to a Superadded Form
At the heart of the theory lies an implicit claim:
- That one may retain a true relation to ecclesiastical office (materialiter) while lacking jurisdiction (formaliter).
But this is a misconception of the nature of hierarchy.
For jurisdiction is not an accidental perfection added to an already constituted subject; it is that by which the subject is constituted as a principle of ecclesiastical action. It is the very form.
Without jurisdiction:
- there is no authority to govern,
- no authority to teach with mandate,
- no participation in the Church’s visible structure.
What remains is not a hierarchy in potency, but merely:
- a subject capable of receiving authority, (if he is indeed a member of the Church)
- not one who possesses it in any sense.
Thus the analogy of matter and form is misapplied. No one can be consistent in gainsaying this conclusion.
The Collapse of the Distinction
We are now in a position to state the decisive point.
The attempted distinction asserts:
- Greeks: outside because declared, therefore has no material hierarchy.
- Conciliar hierarchy: not declared, therefore material hierarchy is retained.
But this reasoning fails because:
- Declarations do not constitute ecclesial reality
- The principles of separation (heresy and schism) are equally operative
- The definition of “material hierarchy” becomes indeterminate when applied consistently
- Jurisdiction is essential, not accidental, to hierarchy
Therefore:
- If the Greeks cannot be said to possess a Catholic hierarchy even materially,
- Neither can anybody publicly deviating from the Catholic faith. (In this case modernist conciliar hierarchy)
And conversely:
- If a “material hierarchy” is admitted in one case, it must be admitted in the other;
in which case the term loses all theological precision.
Summing Up:
The distinction between Greek schismatics and the modernist conciliar hierarchy, as regards the title “Catholic hierarchy secundum quid,” is not a true distinction, but an artifact of inconsistent application.
It rests upon:
- a confusion of declaration with reality,
- a division of principles that admit no division,
- and an equivocal use of metaphysical language.
Thus the conclusion remains firm:
A hierarchy is either Catholic simpliciter, possessing jurisdiction within the unity of the Church,
or it is not.
There is no stable middle category. No sophistry can create it from the blues.
No semantic maneuvering can produce an ecclesial halfway house.
No dialectical ingenuity can posit a “quasi-hierarchy” suspended between being and non-being.
No conceptual elasticity can turn absence of jurisdiction into a qualified presence of office.
A hierarchy is either Catholic in act; or it is not Catholic at all.
And if it is not Catholic, then calling it “Catholic materially” / Catholic secundum quid” does not alter its theological status; it merely obscures it with terminology.
This is unacceptable. It is a bane, not a boon, to the Catholic cause in the face of modernist imposture.
Comments
Post a Comment