(WM Round-Up) – On Friday 26 June 2026, I appeared on Integrity Magazine’s podcast with to continue our new series about the indefectibility of the Church, and my long article ‘Spotless and Unsullied’ – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy.

The conversation focused on Chapter II: Fr Crean’s doctrinal exposition considered.

Spotless and Unsullied is the third part of my response to Fr Thomas Crean OP’s article The Perpetual Visibility of the Catholic Church Under the Pope.

Much of what Fr Crean writes about indefectibility in this article is correct; however, it overlooks or obscures extra elements of this attribute of the Church, and this allows him to use it in an argument against “sedevacantism.”

Topics in this interview included:

• Fr Crean’s doctrinal exposition of indefectibility – in what it consists, where it is accurate, and where it falls short

• The Faith – religious liberty, and the attempts to reconcile it with the Church’s teaching

• The Sacraments – infallibility of universal disciplinary laws, and why criticism of the Novus Ordo is different in kind to criticism of the Pope St Pius X breviary reforms, etc.

• The Hierarchy

We will be releasing Chapter II of Spotless and Unsullied for all readers next week. But you can read it NOW in the book-length article discussed here:

Spotless and Unsullied – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy

(NB: It is not necessary to have read Radically Insufficient or Zero Marks before reading Spotless and Unsullied.)

Subscribe now

Other parts in the Zero Marks series:

• ‘Radically insufficient’ – Reply to Fr Crean on the Church’s visibility, Part I

• ‘Zero Marks’ – Why the Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Catholic Church (Reply to Fr Thomas Crean) (All chapters and conclusion)

  • Introduction, and Chapter I: Unity

  • Chapter II: Holiness

  • Chapter III: Catholicity

  • Chapter IV: Apostolicity as a Mark

  • Chapter V: Apostolicity as a Property

  • Conclusion: ‘Hovel in the Valley’

• Spotless and Unsullied – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy (Part III)

See also:

• Fr Damien Dutertre ICR – ‘On the Indefectibility of the Church’

The previous interviews

This interview was a follow up to our previous conversations of the other parts of my response to Fr Crean.

Here is the first interview, on the visibility of the Church (Part I):

Here is the second, on the property of unity (Part II, Ch. 1):

Here is the third, on the property of holiness (Part II, Ch. II):

Here is the fourth, on the property of catholicity (Part II, Ch. III):

Here is the fifth, on the note of apostolicity (Part II, Ch. IV):

Here is the sixth, on the property of apostolicity (Part II, Ch. V):

Here is the seventh, on the conclusion to Zero Marks:

Here is the eighth, on the first chapter of Spotless and Unsullied:

Thank you to Stephen for having me on again. I hope readers of The WM Review enjoy it – and give a follow too.

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!

Subscribe now

Donate

Lovely Mugs

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• The Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram

Editor’s Notes

This is Part III of a trilogy of extracts taken from The History of St Dominic, Founder of the Friars Preachers (1891) by the English author Augusta Theodosia Drane – also known as Mother Francis Raphael. You can see more about Drane in Part I.

This trilogy – which recounts the conflict between the Church and Count Raymond VI of Toulose – is intended to illustrate what a society becomes when imbued with Christian principles, and in which Christ is King.

As mentioned, the doctrine in question may be summarised as follows:

Our Lord Jesus Christ is not only the King of individuals who choose the accept Him; He is King over the whole of Creation, including nations and states. Civil authority is not only obliged to work for the common good of civic society, namely peace and the common good of the nation; it is also obliged to recognize Our Lord Jesus Christ, His Divinity and His Kingship, to offer Him appropriate homage and public worship, and to govern in accordance with the Gospel.

In the previous parts, we saw that Raymond VI had been permitting various forms of lawlessness in his lands, as well as tolerating the encroachments of the Cathars and Albigensians. We saw that his excommunication led him to “string things along” with the Church, in order to avoid a declaration deposing him and relieving his subjects of their allegiance to him – and how this “temporizing” did not last very long, due to the murder of the Papal Legate Bl. Peter de Castelnau.

In response to the murder of the his ambassador, Pope Innocent III called for a crusade against the Albigensians and Count Raymond. In alarm, Raymond went to Rome and sought reconciliation with the Pope.

The chief interest of this extract for our purposes is the list of crimes for which the Church required Raymond to make reparation. In addition to his involvement with the murder, they included:

• Paying bands of thugs to terrorise and rob the citizenry

• Failing to observe “The Truce of God”, and using war and violence in violation of the Church’s strict rules (see Part I)

• “Oppressive tolls” on his subjects

• Ejecting bishops from their sees

• Ill-treatment of clergy and religious

• Seizing churches for his own purposes

• Favouring heretics and breaking his oaths to expel them from his lands.

Given the state of our current world, we can consider again the questions posed in the first part. While men such as Senator Ted Cruz wish to characterise the Kingship of Christ as un-American, would we prefer to live in a world in which civil rulers are held to account for the crimes mentioned (some of which may seem familiar), or in which they can commit them with impunity?

Regrettably, however, Raymond VI was ultimately incorrigible. He did not diligently deal with heresy in his dominions, and was thus declared to have violated his oath again. He was again excommunicated, and Toulouse was placed under interdict. Defeated by Simon de Montfort, he was exiled to England – until he eventually returned in 1217 and defeated de Montfort himself. He died under excommunication in 1222.

The Kingship of Christ does not result in a utopia, and there will always be those who refuse to live according to its demands. Nonetheless, the case of Raymond VI “proves the rule”, showing what such a world considered to be acceptable and unacceptable – and the extent to which civil rulers were held to account by the Church and the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

“Men must look for the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ.”

Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas

Subscribe now

From

The History of St. Dominic, Founder of the Friars Preachers

Augusta Theodosia Drane

Longmans, Green and Company, London, 1891. pp. 70–72

1. Why the Kingship of Christ is the best set-up for society: War and Tyrants

2. The martyrdom of Bl. Pierre de Castelnau – what the reaction shows us about the Kingship of Christ

3. The Confession of Raymond of Toulouse – Only the Kingship of Christ can hold tyrants to account like this

The Crusade

The death of Peter de Castelnau took place in the February of 1208, and its effect, as we have seen, was to put an end to all hopes of temporizing.

The crime of the Count of Toulouse was declared to be one which freed his subjects from their allegiance until such time as he should have made due reparation: and a new commission of bishops and abbots was appointed to preach the Crusade, and undertake the ecclesiastical government of the country.

At its head was placed the Cardinal Legate, James Galba, commonly known as the Cardinal Milon, who lost no time in seeking an interview with Philip Augustus, King of France, and urging him to lead his forces in person against the Albigenses.

The King excused himself on the plea that his own territories were endangered by the hostile attitude both of the Emperor and the King of England; nevertheless he gave permission to all his vassals and subjects to take the Cross, engaging that both he and his son would do the same as soon as the safety of the kingdom was secured.

Raymund Submits

Active preparations were accordingly set on foot, and Raymund, fairly alarmed, himself had recourse to the King for counsel and protection. But Philip gave him clearly to understand that his only course lay in unconditional submission to the Holy See.

The Count therefore repaired to Rome for the purpose of protesting his innocence of the murder of the Legate, and obtaining for himself the best terms in his power. He was not unfavourably received, though as it happened, an embassy of bishops from the Narbonnese provinces had preceded him to Rome to make known to the Pope the miserable state to which the country had been reduced by the heretics and their supporters, and to implore his interference.

As regarded the Albigenses, it was felt that no further indulgence was possible, but the Pope showed himself willing to admit the Count to reconciliation with the Church on certain conditions. He was required, after making ample reparation for his crimes, to deliver up seven strong places in his dominions to persons appointed by the Holy See, as a security for the fulfilment of his promises; and to submit in every respect to the orders of the Legate.

These conditions he solemnly swore to observe, and returning to France, he repaired to St. Gilles,1 where the Legate, in company with three archbishops and nineteen bishops were to meet and receive him to absolution.

Subscribe now

His confession

The proceedings which followed are singularly characteristic of the age, and make us clearly understand the grounds on which Count Raymund stood charged as a public criminal.

On the 18th of June, 1208, an altar was prepared outside the western door of the Church of St. Gilles, whither, in sight of an immense multitude, the Count was conducted; and standing there barefoot, and with shoulders bare to the waist, he swore on the Blessed Sacrament and holy relics, henceforth to show himself a true son of Holy Church, and to obey the Legate in all things that should be commanded him.

This oath, which was in substance a public confession of his crimes, ran as follows:

“I, Raymund, Count of Toulouse, do hereby swear to obey the Pope and his Legate, in all the articles for which I have been excommunicated, namely, that I have refused to make peace; that I have not kept my oaths to expel the heretics, but have always favoured them, and incurred suspicion of heresy; that I have kept in my pay bands of Routiers; that I have given public offices to the Jews; that I have turned churches into fortresses; that I have driven the Bishop of Carpentras from his see, have imprisoned the Bishop of Vaison, and ill-treated his clergy and religious; that I am suspected of the murder of Peter de Castelnau of happy memory; that I have broken the holy Truce, and disturbed the public peace on Sundays, and during the time of Lent; that I have denied free passage by land and water through my dominions to travellers, and have forced them out of the beaten track2; that I have imposed oppressive tolls on my subjects; that I have done violence to churches and monasteries, and have troubled the peace of elections.

“On all these articles I now swear obedience; and I moreover promise to enter into no alliance with the heretics, but to bring them to justice; and if I violate these present oaths, I consent that my seven strong castles shall all be forfeited; that an interdict be pronounced on my dominions; and that all my vassals be released from their oaths of fealty and allegiance to me.”

Sixteen of the Count’s chief vassals stood by his side as he gave these pledges, which they likewise bound themselves to observe, adding some others on their own account.

They promised, as became true knights, to guard the public roads, and not to ally themselves with brigands; whilst, should the Count prove faithless to his engagements, they swore to lend him no support, but to remain loyal to their oaths as became true sons of Holy Church.

His Penance

After these formalities the Cardinal Legate threw a stole over the Count’s neck, and taking the ends of it in his hands, led him into the church, striking him with a rod on his bare shoulders as they proceeded up to the high altar, where he was absolved from all the censures he had incurred.

The crowds that had gathered in the church to witness the ceremony were so great that Raymund, in returning, had to make his way through the crypt, and in so doing, was obliged to pass by the tomb of his murdered victim, Peter de Castelnau.

A few days later Cardinal Milon concluded peace between the Count and a number of barons, with whom he had persisted in waging war, and established a tribunal for the just arbitration of their differences; and finally both Raymund and his fast ally, the Count de Foix, swore on the holy Gospels to aid and protect the forces of the Crusaders, as long as they should remain in their territories.

From: The History of St Dominic, Founder of the Friars Preachers

1. Why the Kingship of Christ is the best set-up for society: War and Tyrants

2. The martyrdom of Bl. Pierre de Castelnau – what the reaction shows us about the Kingship of Christ

3. The Confession of Raymond of Toulouse – Only the Kingship of Christ can hold tyrants to account like this

Subscribe now

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!

Subscribe now

Donate

Lovely Mugs

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

Read Next:

Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• The Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram

Editor’s Notes

This is Part II of a trilogy of extracts taken from The History of St Dominic, Founder of the Friars Preachers (1891) by the English author Augusta Theodosia Drane – also known as Mother Francis Raphael. You can see more about Drane in Part I.

This trilogy is intended to illustrate what a society becomes when imbued with Christian principles – in which Christ is King.

As mentioned in the previous part, the doctrine in question may be summarised as follows:

Our Lord Jesus Christ is not only the King of individuals who choose the accept Him; He is King over the whole of Creation, including nations and states. Civil authority is not only obliged to work for the common good of civic society, namely peace and the common good of the nation; it is also obliged to recognize Our Lord Jesus Christ, His Divinity and His Kingship, to offer Him appropriate homage and public worship, and to govern in accordance with the Gospel.

In the previous part, we saw the situation in Toulouse under Count Raymond VI, and the stern warnings which were issued to him by Pope Innocent III. We also saw the way in which the Church had drastically mitigated the barbarities of European wars through “the truce of God” – and that these warnings and customs were, as a rule, respected by the civil rulers. Exceptions such as Raymond VI simply prove the rule, and the Church’s reaction to such exceptions demonstrates the power, efficacy and necessity of Christ’s Kingship over society.

In this part, we will read about how Bl. Pierre de Castelnau was martyred for his strong stance for the Church, the faith, and for justice. This is necessary context for the third part, in which we consider how Raymond VI was treated for his role in this assassination.

The previous part ended as follows:

For the spiritual censure, Raymund cared little enough; but in the thirteenth century excommunication, by the common law of the Church, bore with it certain temporal penalties. At any moment the decree might go forth which would deprive him of his territories, and already a league was formed against him among certain of his barons who would joyfully have put such a sentence into execution. It was necessary therefore to temporize.

Here, “temporize” means, effectively, to “waste time” negotiating the conditions for submission, due to the possibility of temporal consequences for the excommunication he had incurred. But as Drane makes clear, this temporizing did not last long. Bl Pierre’s prediction was fulfilled and his prayers were quickly answered: he watered the soil of Languedoc with his martyr’s blood, the condition which he had said was necessary in order for religion to rise again there.

Bl Pierre was beatified by Pope Innocent III in 1208.

Subscribe now

From

The History of St. Dominic, Founder of the Friars Preachers

Augusta Theodosia Drane

Longmans, Green and Company, London, 1891. pp. 70–72

1. Why the Kingship of Christ is the best set-up for society: War and Tyrants

2. The martyrdom of Bl. Pierre de Castelnau – what the reaction shows us about the Kingship of Christ

The Murder of the Legate

[Raymund] invited the Legate to meet him at St. Gilles, near the mouth of the Rhone, under the pretence of seeking a sincere reconciliation with the Church. Peter de Castelnau accepted the invitation, and repaired to the place appointed in company with one of his brother Legates.

But it soon became apparent that nothing was further from Raymund’s intention than any kind of submission. He desired indeed to be relieved from his sentence, and threatened the Legates with death if they attempted to leave the town without giving him absolution. But as to giving any pledges that would bind his future conduct, he utterly refused to do so. He would neither make peace with his neighbours, dismiss the Routiers from his employment, or withdraw his protection from the Albigenses.

These were the three heads to which the Legates reduced their demands, requiring not only his acceptance of them, but some security that the conditions would be observed. As to oaths, too well did they know what was their value in his eyes.

“A renegade to his faith,” says Peter de Vaulx-Cernay, “worse than an infidel, and incapable of observing his oaths, he had already sworn, and foresworn himself many times.”

All negotiations therefore failing, Peter de Castelnau boldly confronted the tyrant, and reproached him with his crimes and perjuries. Then, despising his threats, the two Legates left the town accompanied by an escort given them by the civic magistrates.

That night they slept in a little inn by the shore of the Rhone, and next morning, having said Mass and dismissed their escort, they prepared to cross the river. At that moment two men approached them, one of whom, squire to the Count of Toulouse, plunged a lance into the side of Peter de Castelnau. He fell to the ground mortally wounded, exclaiming, “May God pardon you; as for me, I pardon you!”

These words he repeated several times, adding as he addressed his companions, “Keep the faith and serve God’s Church without fear and without negligence.” They carried him into the poor wayside inn, where he lay raising his hands and eyes to heaven, and from time to time praying God to pardon his murderer.

“Towards cock-crow,” says the author of the Song of the Crusade, “he died after receiving Holy Communion. His soul departed to God, and his body was carried back to St. Gilles, and buried with lighted candles and the chant of the Kyrie eleison sung by many clerks.”

Its Consequences

The slaughter of an ambassador has in all times, and among all peoples, been reckoned among the most heinous of crimes. But as Rohrbacher observes, Peter of Castelnau was the ambassador from the Head of the Church, despatched to restore peace to a distracted country by exclusively peaceful means. His murder was therefore an outrage on the whole Christian world, and, according to what was then the universally acknowledged law of Christendom, the author of such a crime, as well as his accomplices and protectors, forfeited all social rights, and was to be regarded as an outlaw.

Nor could the death of the Legate be separated from the cause in the defence of which he fell. Although the Count of Toulouse had contrived to incur the censures of the Church on many grounds, yet it was mainly by his protection of the Albigenses and his connivance at their crimes, that he, the Christian knight and noble, stood charged before the chief tribunal of the Christian world.

In judging the question, we must regard it as it was then regarded by the whole of Christendom, when the interests of the faith took precedence of every other interest, and the abettor of heresy stood convicted of the crime of lèse-majesté against God Himself.

The policy of the Holy See in dealing with the Albigenses had hitherto been marked with nothing but patience and moderation. As we have seen, it was by the intervention of the Pope that the temporal sword had been held for ten years from falling on the guilty provinces. During that time, while apostolic missioners had sought the conversion of the heretics by no other means than by preaching and disputation, the Legates of the Holy See had with unwearied patience endeavoured to recall Count Raymund to the obligations binding on him as sovereign of a Catholic people.

It was not until the murder of the Legate had rendered all further compromise impossible that Pope Innocent consented to an appeal to arms.

Subscribe now

Appeal to Arms

In the letter which he addressed to the knights and barons, the archbishops and bishops of Narbonne and the adjacent provinces, after enumerating the crimes of the Count of Toulouse, he declares that the time of endurance has passed, and that the censures long withheld must now fall on the author of so many offences. In other letters he called on the kings of France and England to forget their private quarrels and, girding on their swords, to march against the enemies of the faith.

“Suffer not the Church to perish in this unhappy country,” he writes, “but come to her assistance, and combat valiantly against these heretics, who are worse than the Saracens themselves.”1

This appeal found a response in the hearts of those to whom it was addressed, a vast number of princes and nobles took up arms, and thus there opens before us the history of that bloody war which, while strictly speaking it forms no part of the life of St. Dominic, yet from its association with the cause to which he had devoted himself must first be briefly traced, before we can take up the thread of our narrative and follow him in his apostolic career.

From: The History of St Dominic, Founder of the Friars Preachers

1. Why the Kingship of Christ is the best set-up for society: War and Tyrants

2. The martyrdom of Bl. Pierre de Castelnau – what it shows us about the Kingship of Christ

Subscribe now

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!

Subscribe now

Donate

Lovely Mugs

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

Read Next:

Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• The Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram

(WM Round-Up) – Readers of The WM Review will be familiar with Integrity Magazine, recently founded by .

Following ’s announcement that he would be consecrating Fr Michael Mary of the Transalpine Redemptorists to the episcopate in July 2026, I reached out to the two clerics on behalf of Integrity.

My latest (and first) article for Integrity makes these statements public with some comments.

I also reached out to Aberdeen Diocese, which did not provide a comment – but later issued a statement from its bishop, Hugh Gilbert OSB.

You can find the full article over at Integrity:

• EXCLUSIVE: Bishop Roy, Fr. Michael Mary issue statements to Integrity on upcoming consecration

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!

Subscribe now

Donate

Lovely Mugs

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• The Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram

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:

Subscribe now

Other resources

I discussed this chapter with Stephen Kokx over at Integrity Magazine.

A video playlist of interviews on these studies with may be found here:

Video Series

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.

Subscribe now

‘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.

Give a gift subscription

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:

• What Leo XIV’s ‘complete commitment’ to Vatican II REALLY means

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 Church

Chapter 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 possible

Chapter 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!

Subscribe now

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

Read Next:

Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• The Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram

(WM Round-Up) – On Wednesday 17 June 2026, I appeared on Integrity Magazine’s podcast with to begin a new series about the indefectibility of the Church, and my long article ‘Spotless and Unsullied’ – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy.

The conversation focused on Chapter I: The Indefectibility of the Church. Spotless and Unsullied is the third part of my response to Fr Thomas Crean OP’s article The Perpetual Visibility of the Catholic Church Under the Pope.

Much of what Fr Crean writes about indefectibility in this article is correct; however, it overlooks or obscures extra elements of this attribute of the Church, and this allows him to use it in an argument against “sedevacantism.”

Topics in this interview included:

• The doctrine of indefectibility – elements omitted by Fr Crean, and their implications

• Indefectibility, the Church and the Catholic religion

• “Immaculate” and “unsullied” – what does this mean for there being “two religions” in one Church?

• The Roman Pontiff as the principle of indefectibility

• What this means for the Conciliar/Synodal Church.

We will be releasing Chapter I of Spotless and Unsullied for all readers on Friday. But you can read it NOW in the book-length article discussed here:

Spotless and Unsullied – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy

(NB: It is not necessary to have read Radically Insufficient or Zero Marks before reading Spotless and Unsullied.)

Subscribe now

Other parts in the Zero Marks series:

• ‘Radically insufficient’ – Reply to Fr Crean on the Church’s visibility, Part I

• ‘Zero Marks’ – Why the Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Catholic Church (Reply to Fr Thomas Crean) (All chapters and conclusion)

  • Introduction, and Chapter I: Unity

  • Chapter II: Holiness

  • Chapter III: Catholicity

  • Chapter IV: Apostolicity as a Mark

  • Chapter V: Apostolicity as a Property

  • Conclusion: ‘Hovel in the Valley’

• Spotless and Unsullied – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy (Part III)

See also:

• Fr Damien Dutertre ICR – ‘On the Indefectibility of the Church’

The previous interviews

This interview was a follow up to our previous conversations of the other parts of my response to Fr Crean.

Here is the first interview, on the visibility of the Church (Part I):

Here is the second, on the property of unity (Part II, Ch. 1):

Here is the third, on the property of holiness (Part II, Ch. II):

Here is the fourth, on the property of catholicity (Part II, Ch. III):

Here is the fifth, on the note of apostolicity (Part II, Ch. IV):

Here is the sixth, on the property of apostolicity (Part II, Ch. V):

Here is the seventh, on the conclusion to Zero Marks:

Thank you to Stephen for having me on again. I hope readers of The WM Review enjoy it – and give a follow too.

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!

Subscribe now

Donate

Lovely Mugs

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• The Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram

Editor’s Notes

The following is the first part of a trilogy of extracts taken from The History of St Dominic, Founder of the Friars Preachers (1891) by the English author Augusta Theodosia Drane – also known as Mother Francis Raphael.

About the Author

Drane was born to Protestant parents in 1823, she converted in 1850; in 1852, she entered the regular Third Order of St Dominic as a sister. She held positions of authority in the convent of Stone, Staffordshire, until she eventually became provincial in 1881. She died in 1894.

In addition to the life of St Dominic, she also wrote a life of St Catherine of Siena in two volumes, and other works of Dominican and historical interest.

Bishop Ullathorne – whose autobiography The Devil is a Jackass she edited – described her as:

“… one of those many-sided characters who can write a book, draw a picture, rule an Order, guide other souls, superintend a building, lay out grounds, or give wise and practical advice with equal facility and success.”

The practicality conveyed by the great English bishop is apparent in the book to which we are referring, which is a serious account of the history of her order’s founder.

The Trilogy

This trilogy is intended to illustrate what a society becomes when imbued with Christian principles – in which Christ is King. In recent years, this phrase has been thrown around as a slogan by those who have little grasp on what it means, and would have little enthusiasm for it if they did. In short, the phrase refers to the doctrine of Christ’s universal kingship, which may be summarised as follows:

Our Lord Jesus Christ is not only the King of individuals who choose the accept Him; He is King over the whole of Creation, including nations and states. Civil authority is not only obliged to work for the common good of civic society, namely peace and the common good of the nation; it is also obliged to recognize Our Lord Jesus Christ, His Divinity and His Kingship, to offer Him appropriate homage and public worship, and to govern in accordance with the Gospel.

The texts taken from Drane show us how this Kingship was, to a significant degree, made incarnate during the Middle Ages.

In our day, the “Kingship of Christ” is treated by Americanists and liberals as unacceptably un-American, and akin to a theocracy.1 Only a few months ago, Senator Ted Cruz promoted a long article, apparently generated by AI, which made these claims – and referred to traditional Catholics as “parasites” engaged in a conspiracy against America.

But even aside from its intrinsic necessity, is the Social Kingship of Christ a bad thing for America – or any nation?

The texts in this trilogy refer to the treatment of Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse, who lived 1156 to 1222.

The Count found himself in conflict with Pope Innocent III not just due to his toleration of the Cathar heretics, but also due to his lawlessness which he permitted in his dominions. The three texts in this series illustrate some aspects of a world in which Our Lord is recognised as King.

Here are the themes of the three parts:

1. The Church’s influence over how war was conducted, and how tyrants were treated

2. Interlude: The martyrdom of Bl. Pierre de Castelnau, Papal Legate

3. What Raymond VI had to do to have his excommunication lifted, and the standards to which civil rulers were held

Even if there were points at which men failed to live up to the ideals presented by the Church, or rebelled against them, there is a great difference between having true principles and not having them.

The Church’s influence on war

The Church’s understanding of “just war theory” is reasonably well known, and many have referred to it in reference to recent conflicts. But these references have tended to refer to when a society may declare war on another, with less reference to how such a war should be conducted.

In this first part of this trilogy, we see that even “just” conflicts had to be conducted along very strict lines.

But before turning to Drane’s account, let us consider the following. While there is undoubtedly still lip service to “international law”, modern conceptions of the rules of engagement have more in common with that expressed in 2009 by Rabbi Manis Friedman, affiliated with the Hasidic Chabad-Lubavitch group:

“I don’t believe in western morality, i.e. don’t kill civilians or children, don’t destroy holy sites, don’t fight during holiday seasons, don’t bomb cemeteries, don’t shoot until they shoot first because it is immoral.

“The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle).”2

Chabad-Lubavitch’s headquarters quickly stated that they “vehemently disagree with any sentiment suggesting that Judaism allows for the wanton destruction of civilian life, even when at war.”

Friedman also clarified that his views did not represent those of any organisation, and expressed some caveats about what he had said. However, he discussed his views further in 2024 on the From the Inside Out Podcast w/ Rivkah & Eda, which describes itself as providing “the tools, guidance, and transformative conversations you need to lead a fulfilling life and make a lasting impact on the world around you.”

In this interview, Friedman claimed that the “noble idea of proportionate response” in war – which he mischaracterises – is “embarrassing” and “so childish.” He also discussed the morality of killing non-combatants in war, redefining “civilians” as those who surrender, and claiming that those who make bullets or boots are not civilians. He also extended this judgment to mothers “who make soldiers” – which was met by an awkward silence and an initially disbelieving question by one of the “momtrepeneur” hosts.

But whether Friedman’s views are representative of groups like Chabad-Lubavitch or not, mainstream or fringe, true or false, he is not the only one to express them3 – and, notwithstanding the Geneva Convention and the concept of war crimes, modern warfare seems to be conducted along lines closer to these views than to those expressed by Drane below.

As such, these views provide a dramatic point of comparison between warfare as tolerated under the Kingship of Christ, and as conducted and even celebrated without regard for him. It is not surprising that societies which are not properly ordered towards the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ come to adopt ethics which are opposed to his law. As Christ said, “He who is not with me is against me”; there is no neutral ground with regard to his Kingship over society.

As we read this extract from Drane, readers are invited to consider whether they might not prefer to live in a world in which war is so regulated and restricted – and in which wicked rulers such as Raymond VI are so strictly and effectively condemned by the the spiritual power of the Church.

Subscribe now

From

The History of St. Dominic, Founder of the Friars Preachers

Augusta Theodosia Drane

Longmans, Green and Company, London, 1891. pp. 65-70

The state of Toulouse

Dark clouds, indeed, just then hung over the horizon. Whatever success had attended the labours of the missioners in the conversion of individuals, and even of considerable numbers of the better disposed among the heretics, it was far from being universal.

Encouraged by the example of their princes, the great mass of the people showed themselves wholly indifferent to the pacific measures hitherto exclusively employed to reclaim them. To use the expression of the poet of the Crusade,4 “they cared no more for preaching than for a rotten apple.”

On occasions indeed when the Legates hinted at the possibility of interference on the part of the temporal power, as at Toulouse in 1204, a wonderful alacrity was shown in expelling the Albigenses and meeting every demand. But as soon as the danger was over all things went on as before; until after ten years of these successive and all but fruitless legations it became clearly apparent that the evil was one which called for a severer remedy.

Peter of Castelnau

By none was the unsatisfactory result of these negotiations more keenly felt than by Peter of Castelnau, who was accustomed to say that religion would never again raise its head in Languedoc till the soil had been watered by the blood of a martyr, and it was his constant prayer that he himself might be the victim. The special enmity of which he was the object on the part of the Albigenses has been sometimes attributed to the uncompromising severity of his character.

But it must be borne in mind that in his office as Legate he was charged with the onerous duty, not merely of preaching to the heretics, but of rebuking and pronouncing censure on those who were the real authors of the existing troubles. We have seen with what courage he had enforced the authority of the Holy See against the slothful and unfaithful pastors of the Church; and he showed no less firmness in dealing with those who held and misused the temporal power.

Of these the one most conspicuous, both by his rank and by the long tissue of his crimes and treacheries, was Count Raymund VI of Toulouse. He showed no sympathy with the better dispositions evinced by his father towards the close of his life; but from the day of his accession acted as the avowed protector of the Albigenses. Nor was this by any means his sole offence. Through him the whole of the south of France was plunged in petty wars, which he promoted for his own aggrandizement, taking into his pay large bands of the excommunicated Cotteraux or Routiers, with whose aid he ravaged towns, churches, and monasteries.

Paucity of chivalrous men

It is necessary to remind ourselves of the real condition of society in these lawless centuries, left as it too often was at the mercy of ferocious tyrants. Doubtless among the feudal rulers of the land many were to be found who exhibited the true virtues of chivalry, men who were the protectors of the Church, the champions of the oppressed, the friends of the fatherless and the widow.

But others, and it may be feared the larger number, hardly rose above the level of brigand chiefs. Their sole occupation consisted in raids one upon another which do not deserve the name of wars, and which were made the excuse for every species of violence and rapine.

In these intestine and bloody quarrels the petty rulers of southern France were incessantly engaged, and the Cotteraux found constant employment under the banners of the rival chieftains.

Give a gift subscription

The Truce of God

No one even superficially acquainted with the history of European Christendom can be ignorant how unceasing were the efforts of the Popes to repress these evils. From the gigantic wars between France and England down to the ignoble strife that armed baron against baron, the voice of the Sovereign Pontiff was always heard above the din of battle pleading for peace.

If the Church failed in putting an end to war, she did her best to mitigate its atrocities. By the Truce of God she did actually set limits to the violence of the age.

Under this title was understood the law by which her councils forbade all men under the severest spiritual censures to carry on any hostilities public or private during certain specified seasons. These were, generally speaking, in every week from Wednesday evening to Monday morning, from the beginning of Advent to the octave of the Epiphany, from the first day of Lent to the octave of Easter, and from the Rogation Days to the octave of Pentecost. A number of holy days differing in different parts were likewise included in the Truce, and during all these times it was forbidden not only to fight, but to lay waste lands and carry off cattle.

Churches and cemeteries were also placed under perpetual protection, and it was declared to be a violation of the Truce to kill or wound peasants engaged in agriculture, or helpless women, or to destroy or injure the implements of husbandry.

Special officers with an armed force at their command were appointed to guard the observance of this sacred law, the infraction of which was regarded as an offence of the deepest dye, and those found bold enough to violate its prescriptions were held in universal reprobation.

Nothing, perhaps, is more extraordinary or more admirable in history than the fact that such a law should not only be promulgated throughout Christendom, but that on the whole it should have been observed, and it speaks volumes as to the beneficent influence exercised by religion in those wild and troublous times.5

Count Raymund’s crimes

The Church then, and especially the Holy See, acted as the universal peacemaker. The Legation sent into Languedoc by Innocent III was far from being exclusively directed against the heretical doctrines of the Albigenses. One of its main objects was the pacification of the country by the extinction of these miserable wars and the expulsion of the Routiers. As we have said, Raymund VI was one of their chief protectors.

“He had,” says a contemporary writer, “a wonderful liking for these men.” His partiality for them may perhaps be explained in the words of Michelet, who after drawing a frightful picture of the excesses perpetrated by the Routiers, particularly in the south of France, observes that nevertheless “they were dear to the princes of the country precisely on account of their impiety, which made them indifferent to the censures of the Church.”

It was then not merely as an abettor of heresy, but as the promoter of bloody and unjust wars, and the protector of excommunicated ruffians who lived only by crime and violence, that Innocent III addressed to the Count that celebrated letter in which he enumerates his offences against God and man, and calls on him to make reparation.

“Would that we could open your heart,” he says, “and make you see the enormities you have committed! What pride has seized possession of you, that you will not keep peace with your neighbours, and that you break the laws of God by allying yourself with the enemies of the faith! …

“If you do not stand in fear of eternal punishment, at least fear that which is temporal: fear, lest by the hostilities you wage against your neighbour and the offence you offer to God by protecting heresy, you draw on yourself a double punishment…

“Who are you, that you alone should refuse to make peace, in order that you may profit by these miserable divisions, whilst the King of Aragon and all the other most powerful lords of the country have at the entreaties of our Legates solemnly sworn to do so? Do you not blush to remember how often you have broken your oaths to drive the heretics out of your dominions?

“And was it not you who, laying waste the province of Arles with your hired bands, were entreated by our venerable brother the Bishop of Orange, to spare the monasteries and to suspend your ravages, if it were but during the holy season6 and on feast-days. Then you took the bishop by the right hand, and swore on that hand, that you would have regard neither to the holy time nor to Sundays, and that you would spare neither consecrated places nor persons.

“And this oath, if we ought not rather to call it this profanation, you have observed better than your other oaths, taken in a lawful cause.”7

This accumulation of outrages at last met with its well-merited punishment, and after repeated warnings and remonstrances the Legate pronounced against the Count sentence of excommunication. For the spiritual censure, Raymund cared little enough; but in the thirteenth century excommunication, by the common law of the Church, bore with it certain temporal penalties. At any moment the decree might go forth which would deprive him of his territories, and already a league was formed against him among certain of his barons who would joyfully have put such a sentence into execution. It was necessary therefore to temporize.

From: The History of St Dominic, Founder of the Friars Preachers

Subscribe now

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!

Subscribe now

Donate

Lovely Mugs

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

Read Next:

Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• The Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram

Editor’s Notes

In the summer of 2025, The WM Review published three articles about the question of the so-called “una cum Mass”. Needless to say, this was (and is) a highly controversial topic.

The debate revolves around the legitimacy – or otherwise – of attending the Masses, and receiving the sacraments, from priests who name the post-conciliar claimants to the Papacy when they offer Mass.

But while it is a controversial topic, it is also an important topic, affecting lay Catholics throughout the world. As I wrote in the introduction to the first of those articles, by Michael Hudson:

“We all agree that some Masses must be avoided. In a crisis like ours, each Catholic needs to form his own conclusions on these matters, and to act on them. However, it is necessary that we be realistic about the consequences of such a decision, wherever one draws the line.

“We must acknowledge that the deprivation of the sacraments comes with serious risks and dangers – even when this occurs for proper, unavoidable reasons.

“As a result, we should be on our guard in such discussions, and scrutinize the arguments presented to us very carefully.”

Fr Okerulu’s invitation

Following the publication of Hudson’s article engaging with the “strict NUC position” – that lay “sedevacantists” may not attend Masses offered by “sedeplenist” priests, or receive the sacraments from them – Fr John Okerulu, a member of the Salesian Sacerdotal Society ministering in Nigeria, criticised the author for failing to address “the most authoritative study to date”, namely Fr Anthony Cekada’s ‘The Grain of Incense’.

“The Hudson article examined the question of sedevacantist attendance at an ‘una cum’ Mass without reference to the most authoritative study to date on the subject, Fr. Cekada’s ‘Grain of Incense’ article. For this reason, his article fails to address the crux of Fr. Cekada’s argument, framing the issue instead as one cooperation with the personal sin of the celebrating priest. With this erroneous reduction, he brilliantly applies moral principles and distinctions to argue one may attend such a Mass without sinning by cooperation.

“I wish he better understood Fr. Cekada’s arguments and addressed them.”

His explanation of Fr Cekada’s article is available here:

In response to this criticism – which might also be interpreted as a challenge to engage with Fr Cekada’s paper, or even an invitation – Hudson said the following:

“The purpose of my article was to critique the positions and policies of the ICR, not Fr. Cekada’s arguments. I may do so in an exhaustive manner at a future date.”

What follows is an executive summary of Michael Hudson’s Cum Grano Salis – his response to Fr Okerulu’s tacit invitation.

Given the gravity of what the “strict NUC position” requires of “sedevacantist” laity, we have a right to be sure that it is based upon cogent and certain grounds. It is to this end that Cum Grano Salis examines each authority cited by Fr Cekada, presenting them in their wider context, and their force examined.

Such a project necessarily takes many more words than the original citations – which is why the study runs to nearly 59,000 words (150 pages).

Some comments

First, after publishing those articles in 2025, I was taken to task for stating that the “strict NUC (non-una cum) position” is “among the most formidable” obstacles to consideration of the “Pope Question”.

This comment is clear in itself; and even if it was not, the context would have made it so. I believe that the statement is true regardless of whether the “NUC position” is true or false. It is based on my experience of talking with “sedeplenists” over many years, and it does not, in itself, exclude the idea that the “NUC position” is true. Still less does it indicate anything about those who adopt this position.

Next, Hudson’s study is focused specifically on the question of the “una cum Mass” itself – without direct regard for the fact that many such Masses are offered by men ordained in the Novus Ordo rites of Paul VI. As established elsewhere, the validity of such men’s orders is at least subject to doubt. Further, even if the minister offering the Mass has been validly ordained, there may be other reasons which make attending his Mass impossible.

Finally, it is important to acknowledge that the advocates of the “strict NUC position” have understandable reasons for not wanting the faithful to attend “una cum Masses”. This position is held by some of the most zealous and hard-working clergy today. I have agreed to publish this executive summary, hoping that good will and Christian charity can continue in spite of disagreements about a matter as serious as this one. As Hudson himself wrote in the previous essay:

“No ill-will or malicious intent is meant towards those so mentioned in this analysis […] If any errors are present in this article, we wish to have them pointed out to us so that they may be corrected.”

S.D.Wr.

The editors of the The WM Review do not necessarily endorse all views or modes of expression in external submissions, and welcome serious responses to Hudson’s paper.

Subscribe now

Cum Grano Salis – A Critique of Fr. Cekada’s Position on the ‘Una Cum’ Question

Executive Summary

Michael Hudson

Introduction

This is an executive summary of my study “Cum grano salis: A Critique of Fr. Cekada’s Position on the “Una Cum” Question.” The study is around 150 pages long, and divided into three parts.

Rev. Anthony Cekada (d. 2020) wrote three articles on the subject of the so-called “una cum Mass” (hereafter “UCM”). He argued that it is absolutely forbidden, under pain of mortal sin, to in any way actively assist or take part in a Mass1 at which the celebrant prays for the man currently occupying the Apostolic See materialiter as “Thy servant, our Pope” in the first prayer of the Canon, the Te igitur.2 In addition, he also argued that a priest is obliged to refuse the Sacraments to those who attend the UCM,3 and drew a variety of other related conclusions. (E.g., that one could not adore the Blessed Sacrament while an UCM was being said,4 that one could not receive Viaticum if the Host were consecrated at an UCM,5 etc.)

‘Part I: The Grain of Incense’.

The fundamental claim supporting these arguments is as follows: those who participate in a public act of religious worship give a quasi-approbation of the exercise of worship, and consequently implicitly consent to all that is said and done by the one leading the worship.

From this, he concludes that ten crimes and/or sins are to be morally imputed to those who participate in such a Mass. We can reduce the ten to these seven:

1. Pernicious lying

2. Forbidden communication in sacris with heretics

3. Implicitly professing a false religion

4. Disobeying the legislative authority of the Church in Her regulation of divine worship

5. Recognizing a usurper of an ecclesiastical office

6. Giving scandal

7. Implicitly committing the sin of schism.

These could be further reduced to three sins contrary to three distinct virtues:

1. Faith

2. Justice

3. Charity.

One can easily see that, if this were true, those who attend the UCM would be by that very fact heretics, schismatics, and consequently separated from Christ and His Church – and, additionally, bound to make restitution for their acts.

However, the citations provided by Fr. Cekada to substantiate these claims fail to establish them as certain. He also overlooks the following:

• It is sometimes licit to dissimulate about what is in one’s own mind6

• It is not always and in all circumstances forbidden to communicate in sacris with heretics7

• The judgement of prudent persons and the common estimation of men is to be considered when affirming that a given action constitutes an implicit denial of the faith8

• It is not so certain that there is a universal obligation to omit the names of all unsentenced heretics and undeclared excommunicates from the diptychs of the living (viz. where the “una cum” clause appears)9

• It is not so certain that the man currently occupying the Apostolic See materialiter is, properly speaking, a “usurper”10

• It is sometimes legitimate to give scandal indirectly to others, or to permit them to take scandal at one’s otherwise blameless conduct11

• It is not necessarily a schismatic act to recognize mistakenly someone as Pope, who in fact is not.12

Each case must be evaluated separately with its own particular, complex set of circumstances, and no absolute rule can be laid down for all. All of this is addressed in depth in Part I.

In addition, the central claim that “presence equals consent” is not only oversimplifying the matter, but also relies upon citations which are of questionable relevance, and an objective misrepresentation13 of the writings of the Fathers and the decrees of the Roman Congregations. Fr. Cekada also implicitly concedes that his principle is not universal or absolute and admits of exceptions, since he claims that one is not bound under pain of sin to avoid the Mass of a priest who violates the preceptive rubrics of the Missal through inadvertence or error.14

Furthermore, if his claim is to be taken to its logical conclusion, it would lead many if not most Catholics to become stay-at-home Catholics or “home aloners,” since one could never tolerate a priest saying or doing something materially wrong during the course of the Mass – for example:

• A “sacramental bishop” commemorating himself in the Te igitur

• A priest using rubrics that have been superseded by subsequent reforms, (i.e., disregarding feasts that are part of the universal calendar, omitting the Leonine Prayers, etc.).

Evidently this would be a species of rigorism and scrupulosity, and those who accept the claim, and yet continue to tolerate these other disagreeable practices find themselves involved in inconsistency (“a sure sign of error”) or even, if they advert to the matter, hypocrisy.

Further, the theoretical conclusion to be drawn from Fr Cekada’s arguments, taken as a whole, is that the true Church of Jesus Christ, which is necessarily visible, visibly lacked for a time acceptable worship and a pleasing sacrifice productive of grace.15 This conclusion is heretical, since a visible, acceptable, pleasing and efficacious Sacrifice is essential to Her existence.16 St. Paul said, “You shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.”17

Calling this conclusion “heretical” is not meant to insinuate in any way that those who hold to the strict “non una cum“ view are themselves heretics; rather it is to say that, in the opinion of the present author, the necessary conclusion of this view is, in the theoretical order, contrary to faith.

Fr. Francesco Ricossa of the IMBC18 and Frs. Nicolás Despósito19 and Damien Dutertre20 of the ICR have attempted to answer the objections to this conclusion, but in the estimation of the present author, these answers are unsatisfactory, for they either focus on subjective innocence and the moral impossibility of knowing that the Roman See was formally vacant until the late 1960s (which does not affect the objective nature of the act, in their system), or on the suppliance of a canonical delegation due to common error (which does not address the chief difficulties of the objections).

Part II: ‘An Ex-Sede, the Motu Mass and Refusing Sacraments’

As far as denying the Sacraments to those who hold and act upon the contrary opinion, Fr. Cekada does not establish a substantial difference between the policy he advocates and that of the SSPV which he criticized, and even refuted in a debate with Fr William Jenkins in 2002.21 Both positions fail to respect the requirements of moral theology and canon law for the denial of sacraments; both effectively amount to a usurpation of authority by binding the consciences of others; and both end in treating those who disagree as if they were guilty of grave public sin and even non-Catholics, all of which is gravely unjust. All of this is addressed in depth in Part II.

Part III: Mass in Union with the ‘Pirate Pope’: Some Questions

Finally, Fr. Cekada’s claims regarding Eucharistic adoration, receiving Holy Viaticum, etc. end in being stricter than some theologians were with regard to visiting the churches of heretics and schismatics and receiving the Sacraments from them in danger of death. All of this is addressed in depth in Part III, which also discusses the subject of public prayers being offered for non-Catholic civil rulers.

In this part, we see that his arguments are not established as certain from his premises, authorities or historical analogies. Instead of being a self-evident application of general principles to particular facts, it instead amounts to the imposition of an arbitrary law by private authority. But as St James wrote:

“There is one lawgiver, and judge, that is able to destroy and to deliver. But who art thou that judgest thy neighbour?” (Jas iv. 12, 13)22

All of this is demonstrated in the analysis which we give below. We will reproduce here part of the conclusion:

“Although cases could be envisioned in which a Catholic would be obliged to avoid another Catholic in matters of divine worship, it cannot be said that in all cases are they obliged to avoid Masses during the course of which the celebrant prays for Prevost and the local Conciliar bishop as ‘Thy servant, our Pope Leo’ and ‘our Bishop,’ respectively.

“It is up to the prudent estimation of the faithful to determine if the circumstances warrant dissimulation, permitting others to take scandal, as well as material cooperation in the wrongdoing of others. No absolute prohibition has been issued by any competent authority against communicating in sacris with sedeplenist clergy, nor have they been condemned by name or declared excommunicated as ones to be avoided, nor have they given their names to a non-Catholic sect known and condemned as such by the authority of the Church, nor are they (in all cases) commissioned by a false sect to act in its name as its ministers.”

The full study is available here:

Cum grano salis: A Critique of Fr. Cekada’s Position on the “Una Cum” Question

Bibliography

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!

Subscribe now

Donate

Lovely Mugs

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

Read Next:

Follow us elsewhere:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• The Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram

Introduction

This is the third part of a 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.”

Although it builds on the previous two parts, and the various “ancillary” articles published since I began, this part can be read independently.

Fr Crean’s article was published on Dr ’s Substack, as well as the Pelican+ platform. Dr Kwasniewski advertised this article as “a definitive rebuttal of sedevacantism, at the level of first principles.”

“Sedevacantism” is the conclusion that the Holy See is currently suffering an extended vacancy, beginning sometime between 1958 and 1965.

Although Fr Crean only published a short and popular article, 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.

This part is not as long as Zero Marks (only around 13,000 words this time), but it is still very long for a single article.

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.

Subscribe now

The response so far

In the first part of my response to Fr Crean’s article, I demonstrated that his treatment of what Dr Kwasnieski called “first principles” was radically insufficient, in that he reduced the question of the Church’s visibility to that of the papacy; whereas, in fact, the Church is distinctly visible as the society which Christ founded, through being united, holy, universal and apostolic.

I also provided a number of authorities which recognised the possibility that the visibility of these properties – and thus the distinct visibility of the Church – could be obscured, such that they be harder to verify, whilst still being visible in themselves.

• ‘Radically insufficient’ – Reply to Fr Crean on the Church’s visibility

In Zero Marks, the second part, I examined each of those four properties in detail, explaining:

• That these properties are manifested as notes which render the Church visible

• The relation between these notes and the properties which they manifest

• How a note may be obscured without being lost

• What would demonstrate the actual absence of the properties which the notes render visible.

On this basis, I also explained why the self-described “Conciliar/Synodal Church” – the body of men who at least nominally recognise Leo XIV and his recent predecessors as their supreme religious authorities, and are in good standing with them – not only fails to manifest all four notes, but also demonstrably lacks the four properties undergirding them.

As such, I concluded, Fr Crean cannot credibly claim that this body is the perpetually and indefectibly visible Catholic Church, because it is not visible as the Catholic Church.

In fact, given the foregoing, the Conciliar/Synodal Church is visibly not the Catholic Church – even if good faith “material involvement” with the former is not necessarily exclusive of membership of the Catholic Church.

• ‘Zero Marks’ – Why the Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Catholic Church

I have also discussed each of these chapters of Part II, as well as Part I, with on YouTube with and Integrity Magazine:

• Video: Visibility

• Video: Unity

• Video: Holiness

• Video: Catholicity

• Video: Apostolicity as a Mark

• Video: Apostolicity as a Property

• Video: Conclusion

We have also published several “ancillary” articles while working on this project.

• ‘No longer the same Church, if...’ – Frank Sheed’s red lines have all been crossed

• Polish theologian predicted Conciliar/Synodal Church and ‘puppet’ hierarchy in 1916

• The enemies of the Church and the note of holiness – Cardinal Billot

• How do you tell the true Church after a rupture? Journet’s answer

• The status of the Church’s hierarchy today

• Have we ignored apostolicity of government/succession and over-focused on that of doctrine?

• How long can the Holy See be vacant? Fr Louis Coache (and context)

• ‘Sedevacantism’ as a ‘pestiferous heresy’? Fr Ripperger’s accusation analysed

• Does a long vacancy interrupt perpetual succession? Fr Raphel Cercia SJ

Having demonstrated the inadequacy of some of Fr Crean’s “first principles,” let us turn to another topic to which he refers: that of indefectibility.

‘SPOTLESS AND UNSULLIED’ – INDEFECTIBILITY AND THE EXTENDED VACANCY

CONTENTS

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

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 Church

Chapter 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 possible

Chapter 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

Notice

As already mentioned, this article is very long for a single piece. As with Zero Marks, we will first be publishing it in full for WM+ subscribers, and then will release each of the four chapters over the course of 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.

(Typographical errors will be inevitable in a piece of this length. I will be grateful to be informed of them if they are spotted.)

If you would like to read the whole essay immediately, sign up to WM+ plus today:

Read more

(WM Round-Up) – In a special edition of Questions with the Rector on Leo XIV’s first encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, Bishop Donald Sanborn praised my article critiquing its treatment of slavery.

In response to Stephen Heiner reading the relevant section from the encyclical, Bishop Sanborn replied:

“Well, Seán Wright wrote an excellent article refuting that.”

The article in question – titled ‘The Church ended slavery. So why is Leo XIV apologizing?’ – was published on LifeSiteNews, on 29 May 2026.

After Bishop Sanborn and Mr Heiner gave an overview of the history of slavery and the Church, largely along the same lines as that related in my article, Mr Heiner asked what the Bishop made of Leo XIV’s “apology” for “the delay with which both society and the Church came to denounce the scourge of slavery”.

His answer led to the following exchange:

Bishop Sanborn: Well, he doesn’t know his history, I would say. Let him read Seán Wright’s excellent article, and he’ll find out a lot of things.

Stephen Heiner: I think Seán knows... he can send that on to Rome – to “His Holiness.”

Bishop Sanborn: Yes, send it to Rome. And check that out.

I am grateful for these words of encouragement from Bishop Sanborn and Mr Heiner.

Subscribe now

What did Leo XIV actually say?

In paragraph n. 176 of Magnifica Humanitas, Leo XIV characterises certain contemporary labour conditions as a kind of slavery, before stating that:

“In continuity with the tradition inaugurated by Leo XIII, the Church renews her firm condemnation of all forms of slavery, trafficking and the commodification of persons.” (n. 174)

However, he adds that “the Church has gradually come to a deeper awareness of the gravity” of slavery, and related issues, and describes this as a “development of her doctrine.”

“The delay with which both society and the Church came to denounce the scourge of slavery” is a source of lamentation for Leo XIV. He states that “there was not always consistency” between the Church’s affirmation of “the dignity of every human being” and her practical attitude towards the institution of slavery – “given that slavery was long tolerated before being unequivocally condemned.”

“[I]t took eighteen centuries,” he claimed, “for [this affirmation’s] full incompatibility with slavery to be explicitly recognized.”

This “delay” was because, Leo XIV says, “the moral criteria that matured over time” were not “available” to the Church in previous ages.

“It was only in the nineteenth century,” Leo XIV states, “that a formal, absolute and universal condemnation of slavery was clearly articulated.” In this, he refers to Leo XIII’s encyclical In Plurimis.

His explanation offered for this “delay” appears in one of the footnotes:

“Political and, at times, even economic needs overcame the demands of the Gospel. The need for evangelization was frequently compromised or at least misunderstood with regard to the needs of worldly powers, thus relativizing the problematic incompatibility of slavery with the Christian conscience.” (fn. 174)

The “delay,” he says, “constitutes a wound in Christian memory, one from which we cannot consider ourselves detached.” It is for this reason, and the “immense suffering and humiliation endured by so many in contrast to their immeasurable dignity as persons infinitely loved by the Lord,” that Leo XIV writes:

(I)n the name of the Church, I sincerely ask for pardon.

The article to which Bishop Sanborn refers addresses all of the points raised by Leo XIV. Here is the overview which I provided in the article itself:

• The Church was responsible for the progressive eradication of slavery, and a society in which socio-economic conditions were so radically improved that slavery became obsolete;

• The term “slavery” is equivocal and encompasses a broad range of practices: traditional Catholic doctrine holds that the institution itself is an evil suffered and to be ended, and (to put it mildly) far from the ideal of how humans should live; but that, while some of the practices denoted by the term are indeed intrinsically evil, others are not;

• The Church condemned intrinsically evil forms of slavery and worked to render slavery obsolete long before the 19th century;

• While Pope Leo XIII exhorted Catholics to support, in principle, universal emancipation – an exhortation we are bound to accept – he did not articulate “a formal, absolute and universal condemnation of slavery” in the cited encyclical;

• The assertions that the Church lacked “moral criteria that matured over time,” failed to condemn an intrinsically evil institution, and that due to a lack of “mature moral criteria,” “political” and “economic” factors “overcame the demands of the Gospel,” are gravely deleterious to the indefectibility and holiness of the Church – as well as undermining of Leo XIV’s own doctrine.

I would like to thank for the advice and suggestions he provided in writing the article in question. He also wrote an article on the matter for Integrity Magazine:

• Magnifica Humanitas distorts Church teaching on slavery (American Reform)

In addition to this article, my colleague Matthew McCusker wrote an overview of the encyclical itself:

• Leo XIV’s Magnifica Humanitas: a blueprint for the destruction of the Catholic Church (Matthew McCusker)

In the past, McCusker and myself have also written other analyses of issues Leo XIV addresses in the encyclical:

• Has Leo XIV contradicted Catholic teaching on just war? (Matthew McCusker)

• Report: Leo XIV says ‘our task is not to build a Christendom’ (Matthew McCusker)

• What does the Catholic Church say about immigration? (S.D. Wright)

And here, again, is the article mentioned by Bishop Sanborn:

• The Church ended slavery. So why is Leo XIV apologizing? (S.D. Wright)

Bishop Sanborn’s mention of gladiatorial games

Bishop Sanborn also raised a point of comparison, which I had already regretted not including:

“The Church didn’t succeed in suppressing the gladiatorial games until the 500s AD.”

This example is interesting, because it has points of similarity and difference with the Church’s treatment of slavery – and these points illuminate the Church’s mode of proceeding in the latter case.

In the article, I wrote:

“That which is intrinsically evil – such as abortion, or the human sacrifice of the Aztecs – cannot be subject to concerns about ‘political agitation’ or the ‘human rights’ of those responsible. It must simply and immediately end.”

Although, as Bishop Sanborn said, the brutal and bloodthirsty gladiatorial games were not successfully suppressed for some time, this is how the Church viewed them. The Church and the Fathers were very clear: gladiatorial combat was intrinsically immoral; slavery was not.

The following comments about GLADIATORIAL BLOOD-SPORTS are for WM+ members.

The WM Review is free for readers. This is because we believe these ideas must reach as many people as possible.

However, we also provide WM+ articles – additional material for those who choose to support this work financially.

This helps us continue producing serious Catholic research, while ensuring that the main body of material remains accessible for all.

If you want to ensure that this continues, join WM+ today.

(Clergy and seminarians can contact us for free membership.)

Read more

Editor’s Notes

The following article, by Fr Piergiorgio Coradello IMBC, is republished from the Sodalitium magazine with the permission of the Mater Boni Consilii Institute. Fr Coradello was ordained in 2023 by Bishop Geert Stuyver.

The IMBC is an association of priests, religious and laymen that adhere to the “Cassiciacum Thesis” of Bishop Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers.

What is the Cassiciacum Thesis? It is based around the notion that a man can be the Pope formaliter (in which case, he is the Pope, and in possession of papal authority) or merely materialiter (in which case the “pope” is not in possession of this authority; he is not the Pope, but he is in a certain position that disposes him towards receiving that authority). The central claim of the Cassiciacum Thesis is that the Apostolic See has been vacant formaliter since at least 8th December, 1965.

This “Thesis” has been one of the principal fault lines dividing those who hold the Apostolic See to have been vacant since around the time of the Second Vatican Council. At times, this division has flared into fierce debate and animosity. In my opinion, this has sometimes been caused by the mode of argumentation and certain terms employed both by some advocates of the Thesis and by some of its critics (sometimes called “Totalists”).

Fr Coradello’s article takes a different approach to some recent presentations. He presents his claims in terms that show a greater degree of common ground than might have been obvious previously, and he takes the time to explain how certain conclusions follow even on the presuppositions of those who do not accept the Thesis. A chief interest of his work is that it opens up the possibility of reconciling aspects of the Thesis with some of the most cherished presuppositions of the “Totalists”, which have formed the basis of various objections.

However, Fr Coradello’s is not the only work that has opened up such possibilities. The following writings by Fr Noël Barbara, Fr Hervé Belmont and Fr Francesco Ricossa IMBC also appear to me to suggest as much:

• ‘The Cassiciacum Thesis’ – an explanation for the current crisis in the Church? (Fr Hervé Belmont)

• Other Problems that the Popes of Vatican II Present to the Catholic Conscience (Fr Noël Barbara – Fortes in Fide, Series 3, Vol. 8)

• Une consécration épiscopale valide est-elle nécessaire pour être Pape ? (Fr Francesco Ricossa – Sodalitium, n. 62, 2009, pp. 40–49)

At present, the Thesis is proving again to be a point of controversy. Under such conditions, an essay like Fr Coradello’s can give a clearer view of common ground and focus the debate.

For these reasons, I am grateful to Sodalitium and the IMBC for the opportunity to bring this article to the attention of our readers. It is preceded by Fr Aedan Gilchrist ICR’s Foreword to The WM Review’s republication.

Disclaimer: Needless to say, neither our publication of this text, nor the IMBC’s gracious permission for us to do so, represents a wholesale endorsement or acceptance of each other’s positions.

S.D.Wr.

Subscribe now

Foreword to The WM Review’s Republication

Fr Aedan Gilchrist ICR

In an age that conspires against the contemplation of divine truth, one may rightly ask whether men are still capable of contemplation at all. The spirit of the world, the temptations of the flesh, and the subtle deceits of the devil increasingly militate against man’s vocation as the “animal rationale”, the rational creature composed of body and soul, and therefore against his higher vocation as a contemplative being.

Modern man seeks quick and facile answers, often comforting but misleading, preferring distraction to wisdom and utility to truth. Yet the soul was not made for distraction. Man’s natural end is the contemplation of the First Cause of all being: Ipsum Esse Subsistens, Subsistent Being Itself, God Himself.

But grace calls man to something even greater. Beyond the natural contemplation of causes, he is called to a supernatural contemplation of the inner life of the Triune God, of the Incarnate Word, and of the Mystical Body of Christ, that is, the Catholic Church, in which the divine life is communicated through grace, the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and the truths of supernatural revelation contained within the deposit of faith. In Christ, Truth is not merely known abstractly, but communicated personally to His members.

For this reason, the wisdom of Saint Thomas Aquinas remains indispensable. It has long been said: Ite ad Thomam, “Go to Thomas.” Indeed, we must go to Thomas; we must go to the Thomists. And in this present crisis in the Church, in this time of confusion and obscurity, I would also say: “Go to Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers,” faithful son of Saint Thomas and Saint Dominic.

To understand the intelligibility of the Faith, the nature of the Church, and the profound theological questions raised in our own time, one finds in Guérard des Lauriers not a spirit of novelty, but a contemplative theologian formed in fidelity to tradition. He sought neither controversy nor innovation, especially for their own sake, but rather endeavoured, with intellectual rigor and filial obedience to truth, to contemplate reality and the divine truths without compromise.

I wish to make the words of another priest my own, for they crystallise my thought:

“Father Guérard was a great theologian. Gifted with a keen metaphysical sense, he placed his unparalleled intellectual penetration at the service of a loving understanding of the revealed deposit. A profound and original disciple of the Common Doctor, with the surprising flashes of insight that often characterize genius—one thinks of a Cardinal Cajetan—Father Guérard was intellectually a man of tradition, open to all the sound intuitions of modern thinkers. He was one of the great representatives of the Thomistic current in the 20th century. The technicality of his expression, as well as the fact that many of his works are unfinished or unpublished, makes a thorough understanding of his thought difficult…”

It is therefore my hope that this commentary, humbly presented by Father Coradello, will render more accessible some of the deeper syntheses and theological insights of Guérard des Lauriers while remaining faithful to his thought and avoiding all misrepresentation. May it be of faithful service to the truth.

Saint Thomas teaches us that the way of wisdom is to proceed from what is more known to us toward what is more mysterious. We ascend, as it were, the steps of divine wisdom: from the evident to the obscure, from created effects to the uncreated cause, from visible realities to invisible mysteries. This ascent requires patience, humility, discipline, and above all charity. Father Garrigou-Lagrange reminds us that the theologian’s sacrifice is not merely one of time or intellectual labour, but of the whole man before the altar of truth. Theology demands purification. It requires that one sacrifice pride, vanity, and attachment to self in order to serve what is true rather than what is convenient.

This is especially necessary in times of crisis.

As Saint John, patron of contemplatives, stood faithfully beneath the Cross, not scandalised by the disfigured appearance of Christ in His Passion, so too must we avoid being scandalised when contemplating the Church undergoing this current trial and participation in the Passion in our own day.

The Mystical Body may appear, in some ways, obscured, humiliated, wounded, or disfigured before the eyes of the world, yet she can never be destroyed in her essential nature. To contemplate the Church in her participation in the Passion is not an act of despair, but an act of faith.

May we therefore imitate Saint John, the great contemplative disciple, remaining close to the Cross in silence, fidelity, and love. Our task is simple to state, though difficult to live: to seek the truth, to know the truth, to adhere to the truth, and to do the truth in charity. May all who encounter these pages find within them a source of contemplation, peace, knowledge, and deeper inquiry. May they discover not merely arguments, but an invitation to wisdom.

I thank the editors of The WM Review for making this commentary more widely available to the English-speaking world.

Our Lady, Seat of Wisdom, guide all who seek divine truth. Teach us never to be scandalised by what is difficult, but rather to embrace the intelligibility of the Cross and the salvation wrought by Christ our King.

And may Christ Himself, the Word Incarnate, Subsistent Truth, and Living God, teach us to know Him both in His Passion and in His Glory; to know His Mystical Body, the Church, both in her trials and in her triumph.

Subscribe now

‘By what title…?’

Fr. Piergiorgio Coradello IMBC

From Sodalitium, issue no. 76, September 2025, pp. 6–27.

Introduction

Materialiter. It is difficult to find, in the non una cum world, a topic that causes more division than that of the materialiter papacy.

​As our readers know, the Mater Boni Consilii Institute holds the Thesis of Cassiciacum. This thesis, the work of Father Guérard des Lauriers, was the culmination of his non una cum journey, which began with his rejection of the Novus Ordo Missae in 1969. Developed during the 1970s, and completed in the second half of that decade to provide a response to the emerging “crisis in the Church”, this thesis makes it possible to demonstrate that Paul VI and his successors are not Popes. Their behavior – habitually contrary to the glory of God and to the salvation of souls (the so-called “objective good-end of the Church”) – is incompatible with the purpose of the papacy. In fact, they demonstrate that they do not want it, whether consciously or not. Furthermore, some of their teachings lead to the same conclusion as they contradict the doctrine of the Church. This demonstrates they do not enjoy infallibility in teaching, which is one of the prerogatives of the papacy.

This, thanks to the thesis, is what we can confirm even as simple believers and priests – that is, as private persons. We must regulate our Christian life in accordance with this conclusion. It follows that to recognize as Pope someone who is not (someone who is actually working against the good of the Church), to celebrate or assist at a Mass in union with him, to follow his ordinances and teachings, means we are participating in such errors.1 On this point, all those who are faithful to Tradition are in agreement.

The thesis, however, postulates that, as private persons – priests and faithful – we cannot go any further. Although Paul VI and his successors do not have papal authority, an ecclesiastical, juridical authority is necessary in order to proceed to have a new and true Pope.2 Lacking this, the individuals in question, while not being true Popes, remain “popes” materialiter. This means that they retain what materially contributes to constituting a Pope. However they do not have that which would constitute them as such formaliter – that is, truly Popes – which is the papal authority that comes from God. They place an obstacle to this authority, whether consciously or not. Nevertheless, despite lacking authority, their condition allows for the continuity of the successors of the Apostles, a continuity that must last until the end of time (even if it is purely material continuity, and therefore one lacking in authority: we will talk about this again).

​It is this point of materialiter that the so-called “totalist” sedevacantists dispute. According to them, Paul VI and his successors are not “popes”, not even materialiter, the Apostolic See is not in any way occupied. To be materialiter, and having even a passive role in the continuity of the Church would be to concede too much to someone who has no Authority in the Church. Therefore leaving other divergences aside,3 I propose to illustrate an aspect of materialiter and its consequences. To do this, I will explain the concept of a “title”.

​I would like to remind you that I am not a theologian. If my intuitions regarding “title” are wrong, it is not my intention to misrepresent the metaphysics of Father Guérard des Lauriers. I also want to note that this article can be understood without taking into account the footnotes which go into specialized details that risk “disrupting” the flow of the article, especially for those who are not specialists in this field.

What titles are we talking about? What is a title?

The Latin word titulus originally indicated an inscription or an evaluation; in any case the Romans used it to mean qualifying something, illustrating it, explaining it.

We have all heard phrases and expressions such as:

“You are not entitled [non hai il titolo] to do this”.

“He became the sole heir [a pieno titolo].”

“He is the successor to a universal title [a titolo universale].”

“The court granted him an executive title [titolo esecutivo].”

“I told you this just for the record [a titolo di cronaca].”

“I am telling you this just for your information [a titolo informativo].”

“He provided a service free of charge [a titolo gratuito].”

“I have the title of purchase [il titolo d’aquisto].”

“You must get a travel document [un titolo di viaggio].”

​In each of these examples, and particularly in the field of law, “proper title is the event, distinct from the material fact of delivering the thing, that justifies the taking of possession of it.”4

​The title, in other words, legitimizes my taking possession of a good. A testamentary will justifies my taking possession of an inheritance; the discovery of an object that belongs to no one justifies my becoming its owner; and so on. This house is mine because I inherited it, this mushroom is mine because I found it, this object is mine because I purchased it, this salary is mine due to the work I performed under contract for it, I have these rights because of the office I received, etc. These are just a few examples to show how one cannot legitimately possess something or act legitimately without having a title to this possession or action. I cannot claim a movable or immovable asset, etc., and more generally a right, unless there is a cause that legitimizes my taking possession of it: in other words, I do not legally possess something unless I have title to it.

​Note that title provides the justification, but it is not yet the taking of possession: the two may be more or less chronologically close, but they are not the same thing. If I conclude a purchase, the seller often immediately hands me the goods; however, for example, there is a passage of time from the death of a testator until the execution of their will! Therefore, title is prior to entering into possession, which is the final result. They are two separate things: the title presents itself as a condition for being able to have a legitimate possessor. It falls within the order of material causality (the material cause is the subject that will then become the final result).

​What interests us in this article is title as it functions in the Church, not as to ecclesiastical goods (like benefices, incomes, moveable and immovable assets) but as regards ecclesiastical offices, and more precisely as regards the offices that entail the exercise of jurisdiction (that is, the public power to govern souls with regard to eternal life) and more generally of an ecclesiastical power. In this specific context, the title is the cause that allows one to obtain this jurisdiction or power.

​In the Church, jurisdiction and the power of authority are always based on some title: to have the power to govern souls, it is necessary to have some right to it (conferred by the title). It is, in fact, a power that is both spiritual and visible, to be exercised in a spiritual and visible society (the Church); therefore the possession of this power requires first of all spiritual causes, but also visible causes; the spiritual part being the communication of power by Christ or by the superior and, if need be, the internal acceptance on the part of the elect; the visible part, the title, is constituted by mandate and, if requested, by the external acceptance on the part of the elect.5 If we were to deny that in the Church authority is always, even today, based on some title, we would admit the defectibility of the Church as Christ founded it; material and spiritual, both a human collective and the mystical Body of Christ, human and divine in every aspect, as its Head, so like its members.

​In short, in every ecclesiastical office, to receive the corresponding power, a title is required, that is, a mandate that serves to qualify its recipient, to delimit the purpose, the possible actions, the time, the subjects, and the place of exercise of that power that is granted.

​The questions we ask ourselves are: what type of title is necessary to justify obtaining ecclesiastical power? And what titles exist in the Church today? This is what we will try to better understand.

Subscribe now

The kinds of title and their consequences

The law teaches that there are three kinds of titles: True title, Putative title, and Colored title.6 Of these titles, only the first is properly a title to something, while the others are false – and yet, however, as we shall see, they are actually titles and have their effects, and, as such, they are not without consequences. Let’s explain what is meant by each of them.

• ​A True title. This occurs when a genuine right to the possession of something is actually granted. A few examples will help clarify.

​Let’s take an author (of a book, a song, or an invention): for him, creation is a title to the possession of the thing and its fruits: the patent, the copyright, the intellectual authorship. Someone who, walking in a crowded place, finds a coin on the ground: it is impossible to know who dropped it; what in technical language is called “the seizure of an asset” which belonged to no one, is for him a title to the possession of the coin. A tree grows on my property without my having planted it, and begins to bear fruit: the so-called “accession”, that is, the increase of my property in a completely natural way is for me a title to possess the fruits of this tree. And finally, an example that each of us has experienced many times: any agreement among men, any contract, whether a hasty one made at the supermarket checkout counter or one for a large purchase, is a title to take possession of something: whether by sale, inheritance, donation, etc.

​In the ecclesiastical sphere. A priest is appointed parish priest of a town: the appointment entitles him to the rights consequential to the care of the souls there. A cleric is entrusted with an apostolic visitation of a diocese: the mission given by the superior entitles him to have and to exercise the powers required for the task of the visitation.

​In all the cases described, there was an event that fully legitimized a right.

• ​A Putative title. In this case, while there was no grant, there is some reason that leads one to suppose the contrary. There is a presumption that some title exists: but yet in reality there is no real title! This pure presumption, which must be reasonable, and widespread (common),7 comes to constitute a title, called “putative”. In cases where the law provides, the putative title can legitimize a right.

​For example, following natural law, the Italian Civil Code provides for “presumptive statute barred” (Article 2957): the law allows the presumption that, after a certain period of time, a debtor has satisfied his debt; and therefore, the creditor who has not collected the debt ceases to have any right to payment. And so the debtor, without any legitimate (nor even apparent) cause and therefore by a merely putative title (the law deems that…), becomes legitimately free from a burden, and is entitled to this freedom. Another example is usacapion: without any sale taking place between the de facto holder of an asset and the true owner, the former acquires it and the latter loses it: without any legitimate cause (not even apparent), and therefore thanks to a merely putative title, the possessor becomes the legitimate owner of an asset.

​The Church supplies the jurisdiction to a priest who lacks the necessary jurisdiction to hear confessions, if only that priest has a putative title to it (Canon 209): for example, a priest who enters a Church that is not his own and sits in a confessional would easily be considered by the faithful to have title to hear confessions: by virtue of this reasonable presumption, even if that priest were without jurisdiction in that place or over those people, the Church supplies his jurisdiction, and the confessions would be valid (regardless of the intentions of this priest, who may be in good or bad faith).

​And this supplied jurisdiction is provided not only in the internal forum of confession, but also for jurisdictional acts in the external forum: just as it is provided, for example, for the obtaining of an ecclesiastical benefice (Canon 1446).8

• ​A Colored Title. The genesis of a true title occurs completely according to the rules; the formation of a putative title occurs through pure presumption; a colored title, on the other hand, is a middle ground between the two. This occurs when all the steps that would normally confer a true title are carried out, but the process is vitiated by some substantial and hidden defect that renders it invalid. It is therefore a null title, but one that appears, or seems to be valid by virtue of some legal presupposition; it is a title that has only the color of a true cause, only the appearance of truth, but lacks some essential attribute. It differs from a putative title because the latter is not supported by anything that could constitute a title, whereas for a colored title, there are flawed elements that seem to constitute a true title.

​Even a colored title, in cases specified by law, is sufficient to justify taking possession; and it is important to note that a colored title is not transformed into a real title: it remains a colored title, and yet it still justifies taking possession.

​An example is a “marriage” in which there is a hidden defect (one of the two engaged parties does not give a true consent, or is not fit for marriage): the exchange of consent, which normally constitutes a marriage, is vitiated, and therefore null and void, and there is no marriage; however the act took place, and thus has consequences, appearing to be true and legitimate (remember that the defect is hidden)! Children born of this “marriage” are legitimate and not illegitimate (Canon 1114); the putative spouses cannot contract a new marriage without having their “marriage” first declared null by the Church (Canon 1069 §2); in certain cases their union can be rendered valid by removing the obstacle that caused the nullity (Canons 1133-1136); the putative marriage can be rendered valid by the Church with a sanatio in radice, and by legal fiction its canonical effects become valid from the beginning, even when it was still null (Canons 1138-1139).9 And all this simply by virtue of the colored title of “spouses” possessed by these two people.10

In the case of the Great Schism, cardinals and other prelates of three obediences (Roman, Avignonese, and Pisan) participated in the conclave that elected Marin V during the Council of Constance, even though all of them were more or less doubtful, and at least those of two of the illegitimate obediences had only a colored title (and not true and real) to be cardinals and therefore able to participate in the election. It should be noted that the elect, although created a cardinal by the Pope of the Roman obedience, had separated himself from it to join that of the Pisan obedience, and had therefore been excommunicated by the “Roman” Pope.11

​And all the examples given above for the putative title also apply to a colored title: the issue was debated before the promulgation (in 1917) of the new Code of Canon Law, but since the Code makes no mention of this distinction and refers only to “invalid title”, both types of invalid title (putative and colored) are sufficient for suppliance by the Church.

​As we have seen, there are titles that, while not true, legitimize the possession of a right and/or allow the validity of certain acts, even acts of jurisdiction. As the reader may already intuit, these principles have consequences of great importance in the current crisis in the Church. Let’s examine them together.

Are we talking about… jurisdiction today?

Let’s be clear. About today’s difficult situation, we are not addressing the jurisdiction required for the internal forum [in practice, for confession; an interested reader can find the answer elsewhere12].

​We will not speak of the ordinary jurisdiction proper to the external forum [the ordinary power of governance; let us recall, with Tradition and in particular with Pius XII, that bishops enjoy jurisdiction only by receiving it from the Pope, of whom we are, unfortunately, deprived13]. Even if one possesses a title, it does not confer jurisdiction, but is merely…a title to it. Having a claim to something is one thing, to receive that which is rightfully ours is another. In this sense, we are not speaking of the Pope’s jurisdiction, which can only come to him from Jesus Christ and by virtue of a title that is not essentially vitiated. In Montini and his successors, the absence of the objective and habitual intention to procure the good of the Church, an absence manifested by their actions, reveals to us that there is at least one essential defect in their title to the papacy (we will return to this). The current occupants of the Chair of Peter do not have a true title, and therefore cannot be in possession of the Authority. But does this mean…that they are totally devoid of a title? And are the occupants of the episcopal sees, and the “cardinals” also totally devoid of title? And are their acts without consequences? And can they not benefit from supplied jurisdiction?

​We will address these issues separately (Point 1 for the pope; Point 2 for everyone; and Point 3 for the cardinals and bishops only).

Point 1 (a). The situation of the “pope”

How often have we heard: “It disgusts me to think that a Paul VI, or a Bergoglio, could have power in the Church”; “The permanence of the Church cannot depend on heretics, it is impossible”. It is an understandable revulsion; considering the heresies, the constant errors, the scandals of these figures, one is easily tempted to say: “These people cannot be anything at all in the Church.”

​Let’s set aside the arguments ad absurdum against the hypothesis which sees the occupants of the Apostolic See as an absolute nothing, and therefore not even “popes” materialiter – arguments and hypotheses about which Sodalitium has already spoken.14 Let us simply try to analyze the state of things according to natural and ecclesiastical law.

​First of all, let us apply to the papacy what we have said up till now regarding titles.

​​First of all, does it make sense to talk about “titles to the papacy”? Can anyone claim any “rights” to the papacy? I think so. Repeating the definition of title will illuminate the question: title is the event, distinct from the material fact of delivering the thing, that justifies the taking of possession of it. Do we find these elements in the process of assuming the papacy? Certainly there is something to take possession of (in a broad sense, obviously): and it is the Authority, with all that it entails (universal jurisdiction, infallibility, etc.). There is an event that justifies this taking of possession: and that is the election by the conclave along with the acceptance of the one elected [this acceptance must be upright, that is, internal15; and also manifested externally: we are made of body and soul!]. These two elements (the taking of possession, and its justification) are then distinct, as the definition of title requires: the “taking possession” of the papacy occurs with its conferral by Jesus Christ, while the justification (title) of this conferral occurs with the human process carried out first by the electoral body and then by the one elected.

​Therefore, a title to the papacy exists.16

​After this premise, it is a question of applying the principles to the facts. We need to distinguish between two slightly different cases: that of a Pope who ceases to be Pope (as could be the case with Paul VI), and that of an elected official who never becomes Pope (which is certainly the case from Albino Luciani to Robert F. Prevost).

​In the first case we have a person who has lost possession of the divine Authority; he possessed this communication on the part of Christ but destroyed it through an objective defect in his own acceptance: this person’s will was to procure the good of the Church, and this was manifested in his acceptance of the election, but now that will is no longer such (due to objective modernism, liberalism, progressivism, etc). What remains of this person’s papacy? Substantially… nothing: he no longer possesses the Authority, having interrupted the communication, the “being with” Christ (Mt. XXVII, 20) that is the essence of the papacy: he has placed himself in a state of “capital schism” according to the expression of Fr. Guérard des Lauriers17; the papacy therefore is not there (formaliter). There is no upright and internal consent, as it has been deformed, whether consciously or not.18

​This internal consent is flawed; and it is recognized as such to the extent that it is manifested externally (in a probable way by the sensus fidei of the simple faithful, in an evident way by our faith). This will, which is objectively contrary to the good of the Church, while being sufficient to vitiate the title of the elected person and to prevent him from possessing Authority, does not, however, annul the other two elements that constitute title to the papacy, namely the purely external consent, and the election. There is no papacy, but this aspect remains. While in fact this person is not the Pope, yet he is there: by virtue of his election (invalid or not), he appears to be the elect; by virtue of his external “yes”, he appears to have accepted the papacy. Whoever says that he has no title to be there must demonstrate that this person does not even have an appearance of title: the elements that are, in themselves, capable of constituting true title to the papacy are present, but one is flawed (internal consent) and the others by themselves are not sufficient to constitute it (they are the election and the only external consent). Until an Authority in the Church declares the consent to be deviant and until the “election” is not juridically quashed, whether or not it were invalid, this is the situation: the semblance of title remains. There are elements present that, in a more or less tenuous way, give an appearance (even sedevacantists, in fact, use the terms “impostor”, “false pope”, “antipope”, “usurper” for the “popes” of Vatican II, all expressions that signify a falsehood clothed and colored with deceiving truth). In other words, all the elements are present to at least meet the definition of a colored title: a null title, but one that appears valid by virtue of some juridical premise. Such a personage has at the very least a colored title.1920 Certainly, this situation is a monstrosity, the fruit and the cause of the lies whose father we know (John VIII, 44), but… it is something and not purely nothing.

​It does not matter that the elected one’s defection is blatant as a consequence of his actions, and that therefore it is licit and dutiful for us not to follow them, and that consequently, from a certain point of view, the defect of this title is not hidden: it doesn’t matter, because any colored title, even in the civil sphere, can easily be identified as flawed by one or many private individuals; but until an authority with the power over this title intervenes, it remains such and exercises the influence foreseen by divine and human law, as the case may be. And in the Church, it is not the role of private individuals, even priests or bishops, to exercise acts that require authoritative power:

“Given that the Church is a wisely constituted society, the physical or moral persons authorized to declare the vacancy of authority are ipso facto juridically capable of carrying out the “provisio” [provision] of that authority. Therefore, let those who affirm: ‘The See is (totally) vacant’, and claim to impose on others the obligation to affirm this under pain of anathema, convene ‘a’ conclave; then we will stop taking them seriously”.21

​The two facts described in the preceding paragraphs, namely that a certain apparently titled person: 1. does not lose everything, and 2. that the healing of such a situation is not in the power of just anyone – were intuited by those theologians who discussed the case of a “manifest (private) heretical Pope”, some proposing: 1. The necessity for deposition, but 2. on the part of an imperfect General Council; while others argued for at least 1. the necessity for a monition 2. from an authority of the Church.2223

​The reader should note well: I am not saying that by virtue of their “colored” position, such a subject would obtain Authority. No, a false title (which is what a colored title is) is able to obtain the effect of a true title only by the disposition of the legislator. Now, in ecclesiastical law, a colored title can obtain a supply (of jurisdiction) only by the will of the Authority (which in our situation… does not exist or does not concern the present case). And by divine law, considering the nature of the papacy, it is contradictory to think that Christ would supply His own Authority to someone who objectively refuses it (the “being with” Christ is correlative; Christ is with Peter if Peter is with Christ and vice versa). For now, I am simply pointing out that this person is not just a pure “nothing”.

Subscribe now

Point 1 (b). Situation of the post-conciliar “popes”

What we said in Point (1a) applies, mutatis mutandis, to those who have succeeded each other as “popes” after the presumed “first in the series”. The defect in their title does not consist in their failure of internal consent, but rather in the absence, from the very beginning, of such upright and internal consent: the mere acceptance of Vatican II is a sign of it. For them, too, the other two parts of their title remain: election and external “acceptance”.

​Therefore, these subjects never had possession of Authority. In today’s conditions, some circumstances can multiply the defects of their title24; but defects are always and in any case juridically hidden (as they have never been authoritatively denounced); and with two elements of title that are always and in all cases present: election25 and apparent, external consent. The declaration of the title’s nullity must occur with the juridical (authoritative) denunciation of the defects that afflict it: this holds true for ecclesiastical law, for human law, and for natural law: before any authoritative intervention, the confessor presumed to be legitimate validly hears confessions; the debtor allows the prescription to run on, etc.

​In short, even these individuals: A. Luciani, K. Wojtyla, J. Ratzinger, J. M. Bergoglio, R. F. Prevost, are not mere “nothings” in the Church. They have some title to be there – whether true or colored doesn’t matter. Now a title, as we have seen from the beginning of this article, is positioned on the side of the material cause, preparing the basis for a legitimate right, for a legitimate possession; and so, precisely for this reason, the “materialiter-ity” of these individuals cannot be denied. Materialiter describes the ontology of the question, while the “colored title” does so from a canonical point of view.

Canon law contemplates colored title (and therefore materialiter)

Let’s begin with an explanation of the terminology employed by Fr. Guérard and the law of the Church in this matter.

“An ecclesiastical office [OFFICIUM] is a charge [munus] instituted in a stable manner either by God or by the Church, which must be conferred in conformity with canonical prescriptions, and which, by its nature, entails a certain participation in ecclesiastical power, whether of order or jurisdiction.”

“The officium is founded on and measured by the munus, as is the relationship, by its foundation.”

The officium is the relationship of the hierarch (he who has jurisdiction in the Church) with Christ and his subjects. This relationship is given by Christ, but it is measured by the munus, the charge determined by the Church. In canonical terms, the munus is a simple charge; the officium is that charge united with a participation in ecclesiastical power.

The possibility of possessing a title without legitimacy (therefore a colored title – and therefore materialiter), far from being an invention, is implicitly contemplated by canon law.

“This is what Canon 151 demonstrates. It speaks, in fact, of an officium that is vacant de iure (by law), and yet this officium can still be illegitimately possessed. Now, if such an officium is vacant ‘de iure’, this means that the exercise of such ecclesiastical function, as specified by this officium, is NULLIFIED; meaning that, even if the aforementioned function corresponding to the said officium is materially exercised, the exercise has no effect. Thus, for example, if a pastor of a certain parish contracts a ‘civil marriage’, the officium: ‘pastor of such parish’, is vacant, this occurs ipso facto by the delinquent’s tacit renouncement from the moment the felony is ‘notoriously’ known (Canon 188 n. 5). In such a case, should this priest, who up to that moment was a functioning parish priest, continue to perform the same acts as before, these acts, insofar as they formally pertain to the officium of a pastor, are null; and the faithful of that parish must take no account of them. This priest, because of the offense he has committed, has rendered himself metaphysically and canonically unfit to PARTICIPATE in ecclesiastical authority as pastor. More precisely, this priest NULLIFIES for himself the OFFICIUM of which he was, until then, invested.

When the officium is vacant, the bishop must provide for it. But he must, according to Canon 151: first, declare that this officium is still illegitimately possessed [therefore, there is an apparent and juridical titularity that remains, despite the office already being vacant; and declaring it falls to the bishop who has ecclesiastical authority, and not the parishioners or any other person, n.d.a]; second, the bishop must mention this declaration in the ‘canonical provision’ that installs the new pastor. The Code of Canon Law thus recognizes as a possibility that an officium may be ‘possessed illegitimately’ by a cleric who has nevertheless nullified for himself the OFFICIUM that corresponds to this officium. Now, it would evidently be meaningless to claim that there can be possession, even if ‘illegitimate’, of a thing that in fact no longer exists. It would be meaningless to claim that the cleric who contracts a ‘civil marriage’ can possess, although illegitimately, the OFFICIUM that he nullifies ipso facto. What this cleric still possesses of the officium entrusted to him is that which in this officium is distinct from the OFFICIUM: it is the MUNUS. Indeed, the canonical provision that had established the delinquent priest as pastor of that parish still remains; it has, in the Church and by virtue of the Church, an objective effect that does not depend on the particular person from whom it emanates (Canon 183§2). To annul this canonical provision and the MUNUS which is formally its effect, a canonical ‘process’ which makes executive a judgment rendered in the Name of Christ himself is necessary. We see then that the MUNUS and the OFFICIUM can truly be separated, with the former, and it alone without the other, concretely subsisting in the person who ‘possesses it illegitimately’”.26

What is a munus [charge] that is possessed but illegitimate; that is, a canonical provision rendered null, but continuing to exist; without power and yet not declared as such; nor revoked by the authority; what is it, if not a more or less ostensible title, but without reality, and therefore, a colored title? The Code establishes a principle, it follows the nature of ecclesiastical things; it does not apply it to the papacy, but the principle remains, and, as we have seen above, it can and should be applied to the papacy. In the same way, the distinction between the formal point of view and the material point of view is not Fr. Guérard’s invention who, however, had the merit of applying it today to the papacy [St. Antoninus had already done so in the past27].

​“When the Sessio ceases following a crime, between the instant in which the crime is notorious and the instant in which the sentence of the Church has executory force, the munus remains and is possessed ILLEGITIMATELY, but the officium is destroyed.

​[This is the case provided for by Canon 188: the ‘renuntiatio tacita’ (tacit renunciation) expressly concerns the officium, not the munus. And such is currently the case of Wojtyla: he is deponendus [must be deposed] because he is burdened by a capital schism that only he can end, and he is ipso facto deprived of the officium (he is not the Pope FORMALITER); but he still ILLEGITIMATELY has the MUNUS (he is ‘pope’ MATERIALITER), until the Church affirms and promulgates that he has constituted himself as depositus]”.28

“Depositus [deposed] concerning the exercise of the function, deponendus [to be deposed] concerning the qualification, certainly illegitimate yet juridically real, that still remains inherent to the person”.29

​We should note that the munus-officium distinction does not introduce the possibility of: on the one hand, a shepherd or Pope who truly is such, but without any power; and on the other hand, a shepherd or Pope who holds their power merely as an adjunct. It is not a distinction between being and power. No, rather it is the following distinction: on the one hand, the munus, which is the bare office received, the designation, the provision; and on the other, the officium, which, alone, is the receiving of the power over the Church, communicated by Christ; this communication is the only one that truly constitutes being a shepherd or a Pope in reality. We will explore this fully later on.

Some objections

Numerous traditionalists have advanced arguments to exclude any claim of title, even a coloured one, to the “conciliar popes”; let’s analyze the principle ones.

​First objection: The elections of the “conciliar popes” are invalid because… the elected person is not eligible and/or the electors do not have the power of election, as they would be excommunicated (Can. 167 §1 n. 3). Others have studied this question specifically.30 In order to remain within the scope that I have proposed, I limit myself to observing: what Authority has ever juridically declared or denounced the excommunications that would vitiate such nominations, proceeding then to the forfeiting of these apparent titles…?31

The same can be said of the hypothesis according to which the elect and the electors would not be eligible because they belong to heretical and schismatic sects, in short, they would be outside the Church; setting aside the fact that no Authority has ever attributed these qualifications to Vatican II, I respond: Has there ever been an authoritative denunciation of the membership of these individuals in heretical and schismatic sects, a membership that would vitiate their appointments? Has there ever been an authoritative and legal nullification of this colored title that exists in fact?

Some people argue that the “popes” of Vatican II are ineligible because of their subjective heresy, following the decree of the Bull of Paul IV. One could give a specific response,32 but to stay on topic I will address the core issue: even if Paul IV’s Bull were to apply, this would simply mean that the elected person would not have the aptitude to become the Pope; however he would remain “pope” materialiter because of the fact that the election has occurred, and this juridical fact is sufficient to confer a colored title – even if it is impossible for the designated person to become Pope (also) because of the Bull (and not only due to the mere lack of objective intention to procure the good of the Church).

In short, what authority of the Church has declared these ineligibilities? No one, because we are without an Authority. Lacking an authoritative denunciation, even an ineligible one maintains a purely colored title until his election is annulled. The arguments described above all emanate from “totalist” circles, arguments that cannot be invoked unless supported by a denunciation holding ecclesiastical authority, and thus having juridical validity.

In this regard, it is of interest to note what Father Zapelena S.I. wrote about the power that someone outside the Church can have:

“That someone who is not a current member of the Church could be a subject of ecclesiastical jurisdiction results [also] from two proofs: the first is that even a manifestly heretical priest has jurisdiction to absolve a faithful who is suffering from a terminal illness, something admitted by all theologians; and then from the fact that the separated priests of the Eastern Church [schismatics] have, by tacit papal concession, jurisdiction to absolve sinners in the sacrament of penance, and this not only in the extra-ordinary case of serious illness, but in ordinary and daily cases of Christian life.33 It is true that in these cases jurisdiction is being dealt with in the internal forum; but jurisdiction in the internal forum does not differ in kind from jurisdiction in the external forum: and therefore it must be concluded that the intimate nature of jurisdiction does not essentially require that its possessor be someone who is a current member of the Church”.34

Along the same lines, we know for certain from canon law that an excommunicated person can exercise jurisdiction (and every heretic is excommunicated). Theologians then commonly admit that a bishop who is secretly a formal heretic does not lose his own jurisdiction3536. Many claim this also of the Pope, and not only as a “secret heretic” but also as a “private heretical doctor”.37 A note to the reader: I am not saying that a “pope” who teaches heresies, or who objectively does not want the good of the Church, or who was elected in a fraudulent manner, is Pope: I am only pointing out that a heretic and a schismatic, whether secret or manifest, can have a false title that even allows them to have jurisdiction and some power and role in the Church; which is already much more than what we will be interested in saying further on in this article!

​Another type of objection maintains the intrinsic invalidity of G. B. Montini’s election, due to coercion over other electors. Similarly, many who discovered they were sedevacantists only upon the arrival of J. M. Bergoglio maintain his illegitimacy is due to a flaw in the election: whether because of a paradoxical will of J. Ratzinger, or because of cardinal meetings held prior to the conclave (forgetting, however, the meetings held in the home of Umberto Ortolani before the election of their “saint” Paul VI).38 As for the election of Bergoglio’s successor, some are already saying that the conclave is invalid, either due to the appointment of cardinals, or their number.

​To all of them, we repeat: even admitting but not conceding that there is an intrinsic defect in the election, what authority in the Church has denounced the defects of these elections? In the absence of an authoritative denunciation, even an invalid election, until it is quashed, contributes to the creation of a colored title:

“The existence of a possible obex [impediment], discovered a posteriori, whether in the ‘Conclave’ that elects him, or in the person thus chosen, is not sufficient to invalidate this person, he is, at least provisionally, ‘pope’ MATERIALITER. This is because an indisputable fact, BUT WHICH IS NOT OF THE ONTOLOGICAL ORDER, cannot be immanent to Divine Norms themselves. Such a fact, therefore, can only have value and FORCE in the Church by virtue of an order and a promulgation made by the authentic Authority of the Church”.²⁵

The indisputable fact is (possibly) the invalidity of the election; however, Divine Norms demand the intervention of the Church to sanction this fact; on the other hand a colored title exists by natural right and is therefore an ontological fact.

​These objections fundamentally miss the mark, because they fail to consider what is necessary: the Church is a society both human and divine, and for this reason in the cases described the intervention of the Authority is required (or a public and explicit admission from the elect, which, given human psychology and even more so the psychology of the modernist, will happen with difficulty). For the same reason, it must always be possible for a Pope to be elected in the ways established by Jesus Christ, by the hand of God but with the cooperation of human means that He himself established once and for all in the apostolic hierarchy. And for the same reason, a “conciliar church” distinct in all respects from the Catholic Church does not juridically exist.

Subscribe now

Point 2. What “power” can the acts of the individuals described in Point 1 hold within the Church?

Thus, materialiter exists; proven also by natural law, divine law, and ecclesiastical law: it corresponds to a colored title.

​What can be said, then, of its effects? Is it possible that a colored title would have effects? If yes, what are they?

​In the preceding points, we have seen that until an authority with power in the field intervenes, an invalid title remains nonetheless a title. This means that it exercises influence provided by law.

​The “popes” in question are “popes” only in appearance, they are not Popes: however they have a title, at the least, a colored one. They are also clearly convinced of the opposite: they behave as if they are Popes, they teach, they govern (what they teach, and in what direction they govern, is another matter); naturally without any Authority or jurisdiction; but in “governing”… they make appointments. And who are appointed, specifically, as “bishops” and “cardinals”? People in the same condition, who manifestly do not desire the objective good of the Church, and therefore are unfit to govern their portions (dioceses, curia, etc.). In short, a “nomination” flawed in both its terms: in the person designated (as “bishop”, “cardinal”) who poses a hidden flaw, and in the designator (“pope”) who lacks all the ordinary requirements for appointing. And yet… the designator is not a nobody, indeed in some respects he appears to be a legitimate designator.

What he poses is a flawed act, but… it is an act (not in the sense of a valid, juridical, authoritative act; but it is still a human and public action!). It is a colored act. To be precise, it is colored by the “mere materialiter-ity” of the one who acts. From Montini to Prevost, the elected are not true Popes; their actions, however, are vested with a purely colored titularity; they are not Popes, the acts they perform are empty, and yet… Are these colored acts sufficient to confer at least a colored title to those they designated (“bishop”, “cardinal”)? Remembering the conditions for which a title is colored, it seems so: a colored title occurs when everything that would confer a title is put into effect, but it is tainted by some substantial and hidden defect, which makes the title invalid. In our case, it seems that there is a legitimate designation, but this is not the case: therefore, until they are legally quashed, the “cardinal” and the “bishop” have a colored title to the cardinalate or bishopric.3940

We will talk about this again in Point 3.

But first we ask ourselves: does a colored title allow for the performance of some act that has validity, in the hypothesis that an act posed by the holder of a “colored title” requires jurisdiction or some real power to have value?41

​A colored title confers no power, it is not a true title. But above, we have seen how the State and the Church in certain circumstances supply the power, in such a way that even a colored title can issue valid acts. What about the case we are interested in, that of the Vatican II “popes”?

​We can exclude the efficacy provided for colored titles by ecclesiastical law.

​Is it possible, then, for Jesus Christ Himself to intervene, with the justification of a colored title, to give an effect to some act of the title holder? That Christ could provide jurisdiction is beyond any doubt (ultimately, it is from Him that all jurisdiction originates); that He could do it without the mediation of the Pope, is also beyond doubt regarding His absolute power (it implies no contradiction). But it also seems certain that He can do this with His ordered power (otherwise, ad absurdum, all jurisdiction would disappear with the death of every Pope; and as long as the current crisis endures, there would perhaps be no more sacrament of penance, which requires the confessor’s jurisdiction over the penitent).

“The hypothesis of suppliance on the part of Christ is not without foundation, even among the Authors. Billuart, O.P., for example, supposes it in the hypothetical case of the ‘heretical pope’.

“‘It is a common opinion’, writes Billluart, ‘that Christ, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, with a special dispensation, grants jurisdiction to the manifestly heretical pope [heretical as a private doctor], as long as he has not been declared as such by the Church’ (Summa Sancti Thomæ…, t. IX, Tractatus de fide et regulis fidei, obj. 2°). [Here Billuart supports even the suppliance of Authority of jurisdiction, which cannot be admitted in our case].

“Timoteo Zapelena S.I. also hypothesizes a supplied jurisdiction, albeit limited, granted by Christ to ensure the continuity of the Church. Examining the case of the Great Western Schism, after having explained that the legitimate Pope was the Roman one, the Jesuit theologian considers what would have happened if all three ‘popes’ of the Western Schism were to be ‘doubtful’, and therefore, ‘null’. Would the Cardinals and Bishops designated by them all have been invalid? According to Zapelena, in this hypothetical case, ‘one would have to admit a supplied jurisdiction (based on the colorer title), not on the part of the Church, which does not have supreme authority, but on the part of Christ Himself, who would have granted jurisdiction to each of the antipopes as it was necessary’, that is, only for the designation of Cardinals (and Bishops) fit for the election of a Pope (op. cit. p. 115). The case analyzed by Zapelena is very similar to our own. If Billuart hypothesized supplied jurisdiction for a manifestly heretical pope, and Zapelena hypothesized it even for an antipope, there is no reason why this supplied jurisdiction would not be theologically possible also for a ‘pope’ materialiter, – limited, of course, to those acts necessary to ensure the continuity of the hierarchical structure of the Church, which is postulated by faith in the promises of Our Lord”.42

The explanation given by Abbé Lucien in illo tempore, can also be traced back to an intervention given by Christ thanks to a colored title: at present, Christ, the principal cause of divine action in the Church, cannot exercise the principal part of his spiritual mission (missio) by making use of the hierarchy and the occupants of the seats of authority (sessio) because they pose an obstacle to it. However, He can exercise the missio by making use of them as regards its secondary purpose: to maintain the existence of His Church as a visible society (The gates of hell shall not prevail…). Indeed, the sessio is essentially ordered to the missio; but from a secondary point of view, the missio is for the sessio (to perpetuate it).43 How does this happen? Bishop Guérard, in writing about the co-optation into hierarchy, wrote: The officium (in the case in question: the participation in some responsibility in the Church) is received by the hierarch through a Communication exercised by Christ to the hierarch; while the munus (the charge, and in our case: the juridical title), the foundation of the aforementioned relationship between the hierarch and Christ, is received by the hierarch through a Communication exercised by Christ but through the mediation of the Church.

“The modalities of this causality [that of the Church towards the hierarch] are extremely different: be it character conferred with the sacrament of orders, be it canonical provisions…; but ecclesiastical mediation is an essential component of this causality.

“So that from this point of view, the Communication exercised by Christ consists in applying at any moment Church’s causality to the operation that is proper to it, in the precise way that Christ established it.”

​And here one could add a possible intervention in favor of today’s “diminished” operation, which is a purely material ecclesiastical mediation, that is, subsisting in colored titles and colored actions, but it is, in fact, still a mediation – and ecclesiastical mediation inasmuch as it is juridical (as a colored title; indeed, “the MUNUS remains, until the ecclesiastical causality of which it is the effect is annihilated.”)44 The colored title is not nothing. It is a juridical institution founded in natural law. It seems to be sufficient for a jurisdiction suppliance, an intervention by Christ who makes use of a purely juridical ecclesiastical mediation absent of the Authority; this is in conformity with the prerogatives of the colored title and the causality of Christ toward the Church.

Indeed, under certain conditions, with a colored title, the foundations for an intervention by Christ are all there, on His part and on the part of men.

Divinely, Christ always retains in existence things which are necessary for the good-end of the Church. It is only by moral necessity (albeit founded in natural law) that, as we have seen above, the Church or the State is moved to supply, only for specific and determined acts, to someone who has only a colored title, who would normally have no right or power. But in the case we are dealing with, the need for Christ’s intervention is rather that absolute of the good-end of the Church, and necessary for the veracity of Christ’s promise, a promise that postulates the perpetuation of the apostolic sees (The gates of hell shall not prevail…see note 47).

​Juridically, the colored title we have been discussing in the preceding points seem to be both a sufficient legal basis to guarantee an intervention on the part of Christ, and also as an ultima ratio [last resort] to justify it if necessary.

Point 3. Situation of post-conciliar “bishops” and “cardinals”

Let us now turn to the “bishops” and “cardinals” who accept the Second Vatican Council. Before we return to the current case, that of “bishops” and “cardinals” appointed by materialiter “popes” who therefore have no authority, we must make a clarification regarding those prelates initially appointed by a true Authority: they had been appointed and had received jurisdiction – therefore having true title – from a true Pope up to Pius XII (or John XXIII until proven otherwise). Their adherence to the “capital schism” that began with Vatican II did not invalidate all the rights of these individuals: it made them lose, de facto, responsibility for the Church, as well as the faculty to carry out valid acts in the Church. However it did not remove, for the reasons set out in the preceding paragraphs, an appearance of legitimacy that was never authoritatively denounced, and therefore did not remove a colored title.45 The solution for their situation is speculatively simple: once the obstacle (adherence to Vatican II) has been removed, they would regain full rights and powers; once their will, objectively contrary to the good of the Church, was removed, the residential bishop or cardinal would regain his full status as such. Currently, the bishops and cardinals who had jurisdiction prior to the Council are all deceased.

​What can be said, then, for the “bishops” and “cardinals” appointed by G. B. Montini and up to today? They face the same difficulty that was described for the post-Conciliar “popes” (see note 25): the flaw in the titles of bishoprics and cardinalates is no longer simply one (the flaw in their intention), but there is also a flaw in the person who appoints these “cardinals” and “bishops” (they are not appointed by a Pope). Continuing this parallel and arriving at the acts carried out by these “bishops” and “cardinals”, it seems that their value follows that of the acts of the post-Conciliar “popes”: their being “bishop” and “cardinal” is a colored title to the power to elect, therefore their acts of election are at the very least colored acts, and therefore the titles they claim to confer are “colored” as well, they give the appearance of legitimacy, and therefore allow for the colored, materialiter transmission of the occupation of hierarchical sees and the designation of a Pope when circumstances will require it.46 Moreover, according to what is established in Point 2, these acts can guarantee an intervention on the part of Christ and therefore the potential for re-establishing order in the Church, if only the obstacle: adherence to Vatican II, were removed.

And this is the minimum that anyone who believes in the apostolicity of the Church must admit: it is necessary that there exist people canonically authorized (at least by a colored title) for a papal election; the Church cannot remain totally deprived of electors of the Pope.47

Conclusion. What does the existence of colored titles entail?

We have seen how the juridical “color” of offices, and the juridical “color” of the acts and offices of “popes”, “cardinals” and potentially the “bishops” of the Council and the Post-Council is a fact confirmed by natural and ecclesiastical law. It corresponds on the canonical side to the ontological materialiter explained by Fr. Guérard; it ensures the continuity – only material, but nevertheless necessary – of the apostolic succession with regard to the hierarchy of jurisdiction. And it is adequate for an eventual divine suppliance for certain specific acts.

​I hope that with this article Sodalitium has made a small contribution to showing, as Fr. Guérard said in essence, that “the perpetuation of a ‘hierarchy’ which is only MATERIALITER is not, ex se, impossible”.48

Subscribe now

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!

Subscribe now

Donate

Lovely Mugs

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

Read Next:

While I believe that the principles in the below article are correct, it is worth revisiting in light of the comments in this essay, particularly regarding Can. 151.

Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• The Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram

Editor’s Notes

The following text is taken from Fr Raphael Cercia SJ’s Treatise on the Church of Christ.

We are sharing it because of the interesting comments he makes towards the end regarding a vacancy of the Holy See and the effect this has on the idea of the continuity of apostolic succession. The rest is shared to give a full picture of the context.

The first part, however, deals with the argument from prescription as a means of establishing the primacy of the Roman Pontiff over the whole Church. It would be easy for the implications of this argument to be misunderstood in our present situation. The argument from prescription conclusively establishes the primacy under all circumstances, but can result in begging the question when applied to the legitimacy of particular claimants under certain circumstances. We have previously addressed this matter in the article below:

• How do you tell the true Church after a rupture? Journet’s answer

About the Author

Fr Cercia was a dogmatic theologian and controversialist. He was born in Naples on 2 April 1814, and entered the Society of Jesus at age 14. He later taught rhetoric at Sorrento, Sacred Scripture and Theology and Naples, and became a Professor of Dogmatic theology at the Roman College in 1857. He died in Naples on 2 June 1886.

Here are some of his principal works:

Dogma

1. Tractatus… de Ecclesia Christi, Naples, 1848;

2. Tractatus… de Romano pontifice, Naples, 1850;

3. Tractatus… apparatum complectens ad doctrinam de gratia Christi, Naples, 1853;

4. De sanctissimæ Trinitatis mysterio tractatus dogmatico-scholasticus, Naples, 1880;

Others

1. In Epistolam B. Pauli apostoli ad Romanos commentarius analyticus, Naples, 1853;

2. Manuale cattolico compreso in conferenze religiose [Catholic Manual Comprised of Religious Conferences], Naples, 1855;

3. La parola della Bibbia ed i veri credenti [The Word of the Bible and True Believers], Naples, 1862;

4. Del purgatorio e dei suffragi [On Purgatory and Suffrages], Naples, 1864;

5. Il mondo vecchio et il mondo nuovo [The Old World and the New World], Naples, 1871–1873;

6. Empietà e stoltezze del secolo XIX [Impieties and Follies of the Nineteenth Century], Naples, 1876;

7. La Chiesa e i suoi diretti [The Church and Her Rights], Naples, 1876;

8. Aneddoti di religione dedicati ai moderni neoteorici [Religious Anecdotes Dedicated to the Modern Neo-Theorists], Naples, 1876;

9. Oimè! chi si salva? [Alas! Who Is Saved?], Naples, 1878;

10. Gli Evangelici e le loro botteghe [The Evangelicals and Their Shops], Naples, 1880;

11. Il specchio del protestantismo [The Mirror of Protestantism], Naples, 1882;

12. C’è l’inferno? [Is There a Hell?], Naples, 1882;

13. Il libro del perchè in fatto della religione [The Book of “Why” in Matters of Religion], Naples, 1885;

14. La confessione sacramentale [Sacramental Confession], Naples, 1886.

He also contributed to Civiltà cattolica, Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus, and Nomenclator.

S.D.Wr.

Subscribe now

From

De Ecclesia Vera Christi et de Romano Pontifice

Raphaele Cercia, SJ

Volumen I, Tractatum Complectens de Ecclesia Christi, Editio Tertia
Danis, Neapoli, MDCCCLVIII. pp. 344–352.
Translated by The WM Review, with some headings and line breaks added for ease of reading.

LECTIO IV: The foundation is laid for demonstrating the notes which flourish in the Roman Church.

If, as was observed a little above, all the notes are conspicuous and stand out in the presence of the apostolic hierarchy, we shall not be acting beside the point if we begin the question concerning the Roman Church, by establishing it from the genuine and adequate apostolic succession itself. And so it must be called to mind that three things are required for a true hierarchy, and a true succession, to be said to exist in any society.

• In the first place, it is necessary that there flourish in that same [society] a true succession of the centre of unity, that is, a legitimate series of successors of St. Peter.

• Secondly, that there flourish in its bishops a true succession of the Apostles.

• Finally, that these successors themselves be found in perpetual adhesion to the centre of unity itself.

Accordingly, we must accurately vindicate the Roman Church, by which name, as we have pointed out, we understand all Christian societies which communicate with the Roman Church.

Argument from prescription for the Papacy

And first, as regards the succession of the centre of unity, this verification involves both ius [right] and factum [fact]: that is, that it be known who can be considered true successors of Peter; [as a matter of] fact, that they have truly flourished perpetually in the Roman Church.

As to the first point, there is no need for us to labour here on this matter, since it should be held that the Roman Pontiffs succeed Peter in the Roman episcopate and in his primacy by divine right. For this will be treated ex professo in the treatise on the Roman Pontiff, whence this quasi-lemma [a kind of presupposition in a syllogism] may be transferred to us for the present matter.

And certainly, unless succession in Peter’s primacy belonged to the Roman bishop, it could not be explained how from the earliest times of the Church until now, whether among the Latin or the Greek Fathers, all unanimously and without dissent recognised the primacy of the Roman Pontiffs; how, with no one objecting, the bishop of bishops and judge of bishops was perpetually held [to reside in Rome]; how it never entered anyone’s mind, not even the Patriarch of Antioch, to claim for himself the right to the dignity of the primacy; how, finally, neither bishops who dissented from the Roman Pontiff, nor the heretics – if more recent exceptions are raised – have ever called a matter of this kind into doubt.

Furthermore, it is established from ecclesiastical documents that the Roman see was always used as the cathedra [chair] of St. Peter, and that the primacy was always retained over all the other churches of the world; that the Roman bishops ever settled controversies of faith as supreme judges; that they exercised the primacy over bishops of Africa, Asia, and all other provinces; that by their own authority they always convoked and ratified ecumenical councils; and that they perpetually possessed and exercised the right of appeals, etc. But all these things could not have taken place without the primacy itself residing in them, and indeed by divine right, with such universality, harmony of minds, and perpetuity. Therefore, etc.

But let these things be said in passing concerning the right itself of the primacy of the Roman Pontiffs. As to the fact – namely, that there has never been lacking in the Roman Church the series of successors of St. Peter exercising his primacy – this is evident both a priori and a posteriori, from the things we have already determined concerning the Roman Church. For if the primacy is once judged to have been assigned to the Roman Church, nothing else is needed than that there be attributed to it a full and never interrupted possession of that succession. Indeed this succession is not like the successions of particular churches, which are divisible and defectible: but from the mind of Christ it is itself indivisible and indefectible, just as the unity of the Church is such, on account of which this kind of succession was instituted. Therefore that Church which possesses the beginning of the succession, and the first transmission, cannot have it interrupted; since to that same [Church] has been bequeathed something which can neither be lost, nor can ever be lacking.

A posteriori, the matter becomes known:

1. From ecclesiastical histories, in which are recorded the names, homeland, age, legitimate election, deeds, etc. of the various Roman Pontiffs succeeding one another without interruption.

2. From the remaining ecclesiastical monuments – from sacred diptychs, catalogues, musical works, painted icons or the most ancient [images], and even from the sepulchres of the Pontiffs themselves – [one arrives] at the existence of St. Peter.

3. From the testimony of the sacred writers: thus Tertullian (de praescr. cap. XXXII) and Irenaeus (lib. III adv. haer. cap. III), then Eusebius (in hist. et chron.), Epiphanius (haer. LXX), Optatus of Milevis (lib. II contr. Parmenian.), Augustine (epist. CLXV) diligently record the succession of the Roman bishops down to their respective times. The remaining Pontiffs are similarly enumerated by later Fathers.

4. It is evident from the very things we touched upon a little earlier when the matter of the primacy by right was being treated. For there is no age in history in which there does not everywhere appear a certain kind of presence, and of real presence of the Roman Pontiff, as de Maistre calls it – whether when the Roman bishops condemned errors and heresies, whether when they settled controversies which had arisen everywhere among the nations, whether when they disciplined bishops scattered far and wide both in the East and in the West by threats or deposition, whether when they presided through their legates or in person at synods of ecumenical [councils], up to the Council of Trent – assuredly there was never lacking in the Roman Church one who enjoyed the primacy of Peter.

Therefore the perpetual and never interrupted succession of Roman Pontiffs admits of no sane doubt. On the other hand, no one has ever dared to be uncertain about their legitimate institution and ordination [to the See]; but the whole Church has recognised them as the legitimate successors of St. Peter, and has perpetually rendered to them full obedience. Therefore, etc.

Finally, the whole matter has been so thoroughly established that it can scarcely be called into doubt by any of the adversaries, whether as regards the material part of the succession or as regards the formal. Indeed, they themselves are wont to marvel at such a succession, by which it comes about that the Apostolic See, through nineteen centuries, amid so many religious and political vicissitudes, continues to endure and stands firm in full vigour.

The succession of the Church is proved from the Roman succession

If these things hold regarding the succession of the supreme pontificate in the Roman Church, it follows from the principles established above that the entire apostolic succession likewise flourishes in that same Church. For we have said that this [apostolic succession] is inseparable from the succession of the centre of unity, from which its formal constitution derives. Whence there either exists nowhere any succession of bishops, which is absurd, or it must be found in that Church in which the succession of the centre is found.

Furthermore, if we consult the fact, there is no particular church among those which communicate with the Roman Church that cannot exhibit its own series of bishops, whose lineage is traced back without interruption all the way to the Apostles; or at least whose succession has not been supplied or repaired through adhesion to the centre of unity. We have said that these things suffice for possessing a true apostolic succession. Therefore, etc.

Hence from these things it is clear that there exists in the Roman Church adhesion to the centre of unity; and moreover it is evident that, from this same [centre] in the Roman Church, it may be judged who exactly pertains to the centre of unity of the Roman Pontiff. Finally, it is certain that the Roman Church has never tolerated, or at least considered them as bishops who did not adhere to the Roman Pontiff in faith and communion. Therefore, etc.

Subscribe now

Objections

These things are indeed so clear as to present the highest degree of evidence. Nevertheless, opponents raise:

1. Inextricable difficulties concerning the succession of the Roman Pontiffs from its very beginning.

For they disagree as to who was the first successor of Peter – whether Linus, as Irenaeus has it (lib. III adv. haeres. c. III), or Clement, as Tertullian teaches (de praescript. c. XXXII). Likewise concerning Cletus and Anacletus, whom some distinguish, while others in fact identify them. “The opinions vary,” says Schelestrate himself (antiquit. eccles. diss. II cap. I), “concerning Clement and the other three first Pontiffs who succeeded Peter.

“For some place Clement in the second position; others place him third, following the more ancient catalogue; others, following St. Jerome, place him fourth from St. Peter. Equally great is the disagreement among the ancients concerning the other three Pontiffs who sat after Peter. For Optatus of Milevis (lib. II), enumerating the succession of the first four pontiffs, places Peter first, to whom, he says, Linus succeeded; Clement succeeded Linus; Anacletus succeeded Clement, etc. St. Augustine holds exactly the same (epist. CLXV)…”

… for Linus succeeded Peter, Clement succeeded Linus, Anacletus succeeded Clement. But St. Irenaeus (lib. III cap. III) differs, for he enumerates the order in this way: Peter, Linus, Anacletus, Evaristus. Therefore, etc.

Resp. I deny the assumption. As proved by distinguishing the antecedent. That the succession of the Roman Pontiffs among the ancients presents difficulties which touch upon the perpetual succession itself of them; I deny; which touch upon some of its individuals [within the succession] and accidentals; I concede.

The ancients, although they may seem to disagree somewhat concerning the order or person of certain individuals, nevertheless plainly and unanimously attest that the Roman episcopate had the primacy of St. Peter attached to it, and that the Roman bishops were his successors. Secondly, they agree in this, that from the death of Peter down to their own times the series of the Roman Pontiffs was never interrupted. And certainly, as we saw above, they drew their argument from that very succession of the principal cathedra to establish the truth of the Church. They raised this against heretics of every kind, provoking them to exhibit the lines of their own bishops.

Both things therefore – both that Peter made the Roman bishops his successors, and that they were not interrupted – had to be a well-known fact, public and acknowledged by all. Otherwise heretics could have objected and turned the accusation made against them back upon [the Catholics]; of which indeed no trace exists in the historical record.

Since this is how things stand, who can doubt either matter or both together? It is therefore in itself inescapable, and only the labour of criticism remains, to show those who can reconcile the ancients with one another, or from what causes they may have fallen into disagreement, and finally what most tested series of all can be had.

Now indeed, lest we pass over this matter entirely in silence: first of all, Tertullian, who places Clement second after Peter, and Irenaeus, who places him fourth, can be most readily reconciled if we say that Irenaeus spoke of Linus and Anacletus as the immediate successors of Peter, but Tertullian [spoke] of Clement as a mediate successor of St. Peter. As to what pertains to Cletus and Anacletus – either it must be said that they were one and the same, but endowed with a double name, one of which was the apocope [shortened form] of the other, as often occurs in antiquity, and can even happen among us – or it happened that those who made these distinctions were in fact ignorant of this, and that whether they had named [him] now Cletus, now Anacletus, they treated two persons as one, which certainly does not alter the objective series of the succession. Or, what seems more probable, it must be affirmed that Cletus and Anacletus were two individuals with scarcely different names. And in this case, some have judged that those were the names of the same person, and two successors of Peter who, since each held his office for an equal duration, were conflated into one through error.

Finally, as to the fact that some place Clement in the third position, others in the fourth: Bellarmine (lib. II de rom. Pont. cap. X) holds that there were two Anacleti – one who was the predecessor of Clement, and who is identical with Cletus; the other a successor who heard only the name Anacletus. But there is no need to resort to these conjectures. Let us simply say that the Fathers recited from memory one or another series, and that by a lapse of the same [memory] they placed one before the other. And this could the more easily have occurred because they could see that this was a matter of indifference, and could probably [see] that no doubt could arise about the uninterrupted succession of the Roman Pontiffs from this.

2. Objection II. In the series of subsequent Roman Pontiffs there occur doubtful Popes, intruders, simoniacs, etc. Therefore nothing certain about the integrity of that chain can be affirmed.

Resp. In the objection, it is either supposed that the institution of such Pontiffs was either legitimate, or not. If the legitimate, it does not matter that they conducted themselves wickedly, or that they did everything through simony, etc. For as we noted above, the sanctity of the succession does not depend on the deeds of individuals, and as St. Leo says (serm. III de Nat. ips. III cap. IV) “The dignity of Peter does not fail in an unworthy heir”.

But if the discussion is about those whose institution was null on account of the vice of intrusion, or simony, or for some other reason, or [was] doubtful, such a time time must be considered as one of the see being vacant and not yet provided for. So that meanwhile the uproar and protests may subside, and whatever consensus there may be regarding that Pontiff – whether by admitting or tolerating him – already every wound is understood to be healed by the consent of the Church itself.

3. Objection III. Yet in the series, there occur not so much doubtful pontiffs, but rather frequent interruptions, on account of the see being vacant for a long time. Therefore, etc.

Resp. I distinguish the antecedent. Frequent interruptions occur which have the true character of an interruption of the series: I deny; which were a simpler, shorter or longer vacancy of the Roman see: I concede.

For Christ promised the perpetuity of the succession in such a way as to show that He would efficaciously prevent all things that could indeed truly interrupt the series of the succession — but not, upon inspecting everything, that which would merely delay the institution of a successor.1 Therefore nothing can be concluded in itself from a vacancy of the see, however long, until it be proved that that vacancy had the characteristics of a true interruption.

Indeed, in every political society, the series of kings or rulers is not thought to be interrupted for as long as only external impediments prevent the king or leader from being elected; and in the meantime, the society itself is in a state of electing, and strives to elect, and recognises itself to be without a king or leader, and [to be] maimed and deformed.

By equal reasoning, therefore, if the Church had at some time departed from the state of electing a Pontiff, and had considered this matter to be harmful or useless to itself, and had not meanwhile been able to elect a Pontiff, we would have the characteristics of a true interruption.2 But in fact, the opposite has always occurred. For in the interim, the pontifical power was in the disposition of its causes, that is, in the power of the electors, so that it could be conferred upon an individual by the determination of electing [him].

From all this, it appears how much less relevant to the matter is the epoch of the Great Western Schism, and how greatly the adversaries seem to allude [to it]. First, indeed, if Urban VI was not the Roman Pontiff, his election being invalid, then no doubt Clement VII’s (elevation), established by the voice of all the Cardinals except one, was valid. But he was not accepted as Pope by all, as there was doubt about the valid election of Urban VI. Further, at this present time it is now nearly universally acknowledged that Urban VI was the legitimate successor of Peter.

Finally, even if no Pontiff had existed in that age, this case should be reckoned among the cases of a see extrinsically impeded – as being vacant through an accidental cause.

Subscribe now

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!

Subscribe now

Donate

Lovely Mugs

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

Read Next:

Follow us elsewhere:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• The Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram

Ce compte rendu de l’annonce de leurs noms est la traduction de celui paru en anglais, sur ce même site, le 26 mai 2026, jour de l’annonce.

A friend of The WM Review kindly submitted this translation of our article about the four new future bishops of the SSPX (26th May 2026).

L’identité des quatre évêques

La Fraternité Saint-Pie-X a annoncé procéder, le 1^er juillet 2026, au sacre épiscopal de :

• M. l’Abbé Pascal Schreiber

• M. l’Abbé Michael Goldade

• M. l’Abbé Michel Poinsinet de Sivry

• M. l’Abbé Marc Hanappier.

Ces hommes ont tous été formés dans les séminaires de la FSSPX, et ordonnés prêtres par ses évêques.

Le communiqué indique que leurs noms ont déjà été transmis au Vatican de Léon XIV, avec une justification de la nécessité des sacres. Il affirme également que ces consécrations “ne procèdent d’aucune volonté de revendiquer un pouvoir de juridiction, ou d’établir une autorité parallèle dans l’Eglise. Ils ne constituent en aucune manière une négation, un refus ou un défi lancé au pouvoir de juridiction suprême, plénier et immédiat du Vicaire du Christ sur l’Église universelle.”

“La cérémonie du 1^er juillet” est-il ajouté, “n’aura d’autre but que de maintenir l’administration des sacrements de l’ordre et de la confirmation, ainsi que celle des sacramentaux réservés aux évêques, selon le rite traditionnel de la sainte Eglise romaine, et la foi de toujours.”

Le communiqué contient aussi une brève présentation de chacun des futurs évêques.

L’Abbé Pascal Schreiber

• Suisse

• Agé de cinquante trois ans

• Entré au séminaire de Zaitzkofen en 1992, avant de rejoindre le séminaire d’Ecône

• Ordonné en 1998

• Econome du district de Suisse pendant deux ans à partir de 2014, puis supérieur du district

• Recteur à Zaitzkofen depuis 2020

• Parle allemand, français et anglais

L’Abbé Michael Goldade

• Américain

• Agé de quarante cinq ans

• Formé au séminaire de Winona

• A exercé le ministère à Armada, dans l’Etat du Michigan

• A dirigé le maison d’exercices spirituels de Ridgefield

• Prieur dans le Kansas depuis 2014

• Assistant du supérieur du district des Etats-Unis depuis 2021

• Recteur du séminaire Saint-Thomas d’Aquin, en Virginie, depuis 2023

• Parle anglais, a étudié le français, possède des notions d’italien

L’Abbé Michel Poinsinet de Sivry

• Français

• Agé de quarante deux ans

• A étudié à Flavigny et Ecône

• Ordonné en 2008

• A travaillé dans les écoles françaises de la Fraternité et à l’église Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet

• Directeur du collège-lycée Jean-Baptiste de La Salle à Camblain-l’Abbé autour de 2016

• Supérieur du district du Benelux depuis 2022

• Parle français et anglais, étudie l’allemand et le néerlandais

L’Abbé Marc Hanappier

• Français

• Agé de trente cinq ou trente six ans (né en 1990)

• A étudié à Flavigny et Ecône

• Ordonné en 2013

• A débuté son ministère dans les écoles de la FSSPX

• A passé un an à perfectionner son anglais en Ecosse (!)

• Professeur au séminaire de Virginie en 2020 (métaphysique et théologique dogmatique)

• Continuant le ministère pastoral le dimanche

• Parle français et anglais, a étudié l’allemand, a des notions d’espagnol.

Subscribe now

Historique des sacres épiscopaux dans la Fraternité

En 1988, Mgr Marcel Lefebvre consacrait évêques les prêtres suivants, contre la volonté de Jean-Paul II :

• Bernard Tissier de Mallerais (français)

• Richard Williamson (anglais)

• Bernard Fellay (suisse)

• Alfonse de Galarreta (argentin/espagnol)

La Lettre de Mgr Lefebvre aux quatre futurs évêques, en 1987, expose de façon succincte quelles furent ses motivations en accomplissant cet acte capital :

• Lettre de Mgr Lefebvre aux futurs évêques de la FSSPX du 29 août 1987

Après la mort de Mgr Tissier de Mallerais en 2024 – et après celle de Mgr Williamson en 2025, expulsé dès 2012 – la Fraternité a annoncé, le 2 février 2026, qu’elle marcherait sur les traces de Mgr Lefebvre : plusieurs évêques seraient consacrés le 1^er juillet 2026, et ce apparemment sans la permission de Léon XIV.

Cela représente la deuxième initiative de sacrer dans la Fraternité Saint-Pie-X depuis 1988, et non la première comme beaucoup le pensent.

Ce qui arriva en 1988 – Les excommunications

Selon la loi canonique (actuelle), la consécration d’évêques sans mandat papal est punie d’une excommunication latae sententiae, excommunication pour qui consacre et pour qui est consacré.

En 1988, le Vatican avait réagit en quelques heures, déclarant que les six évêques impliqués (Lefebvre, de Castro Mayer, Fellay, Williamson, de Galarreta et Tissier de Mallerais) s’étaient en effet excommuniés eux-mêmes. Cette déclaration fut formulée par la Congrégation des Évêques, le 1^er juillet 1988.

En réponse, les supérieurs de district de la FSSPX publièrent une Lettre ouverte très ferme, qui affirmait :

“…nous n’avons jamais voulu appartenir à ce système qui se qualifie lui-même d’Eglise conciliaire, et se définit par le Novus Ordo Missæ, l’œcuménisme indifférentiste et la laïcisation de toute la Société. Oui, nous n’avons aucune part, nullam partem habemus, avec le panthéon des religions d’Assise ; notre propre excommunication par un décret de votre Éminence ou d’un autre dicastère n’en serait que la preuve irréfutable.

Nous ne demandons pas mieux que d’être déclarés ex communione de l’esprit adultère qui souffle dans l’Église depuis vingt-cinq ans, exclus de la communion impie avec les infidèles. Nous croyons au seul Dieu, Notre-Seigneur Jésus-Christ, avec le Père et le Saint-Esprit, et nous serons toujours fidèles à Son unique Épouse, l’Église Une, Sainte, Catholique, Apostolique et Romaine.

Etre donc associés publiquement à la sanction qui frappe les six évêques catholiques, défenseurs de la foi dans son intégrité et son intégralité, serait pour nous une marque d’honneur et un signe d’orthodoxie devant les fidèles. Ceux-ci ont en effet, un droit strict à savoir que les prêtres auxquels ils s’adressent ne sont pas de la communion d’une contrefaçon d’Eglise…”

Quoiqu’en accord avec l’esprit de ces propos, nous ne pouvons souscrire à l’idée qu’une excommunication prononcée par un vrai Pape puisse être “une marque d’honneur.” La proposition suivante, que l’on doit à l’hérétique anglais John Wycliffe, fut condamnée par la lettre Super periculosis, en 1377 :

“La malédiction ou l’excommunication ne lient pas purement et simplement, mais seulement lorsqu’elles sont portées contre un adversaire de la loi du Christ.”1 (DH 1131)

Le motif veritable pour ignorer ces excommunications ou les traiter comme marques d’honneur – motif malheureusement non reconnu – est qu’elles procèdent d’hommes dépourvus de l’autorité papale.

Réactions, défections et réconciliations

Les sacres déclenchèrent un certain nombre de défections au sein des rangs de la Fraternité. Aidés par un ancien de la Fraternité, et ex-”sédévacantiste”, le P. Louis-Marie de Blignières (de la Fraternité Saint-Vincent-Ferrier), un certain nombre de prêtres se réconcilièrent avec le Vatican. Ainsi naquit la Fraternité Saint-Pierre.

Mgr Lefebvre attira beaucoup lui-même l’attention sur la réconciliation de dom Gérard Calvet (qui avait été un collaborateur) et du monastère bénédictin du Barroux. Le monastère fut élevé au rang d’abbaye. Dans l’une de ses dénonciations de dom Gérard, Mgr Lefebvre dit :

“Dom Gérard n’a toujours vu que la liturgie et la vie monastique. II ne voit pas clairement les problèmes théologiques du Concile, de la liberté religieuse. Il ne voit pas la malice de ces erreurs. Il n’a jamais été très soucieux de cela. Ce qui le touchait, c’était la réforme liturgique, la réforme des monastères bénédictins. Il est parti de Tournay en disant : “je ne peux pas accepter cela”. Alors, il a reformé une communauté de moines avec la liturgie, dans la pensée bénédictine. Très bien, c’était magnifique. Mais je pense qu’il n’a pas suffisamment mesure que ces reformes qui l’avaient amené à quitter son monastère étaient la conséquence des erreurs qui sont dans le Concile. Pourvu qu’on lui accorde ce qu’il cherchait, cet esprit monastique et la liturgie traditionnelle, il a ce qu’il veut et le reste lui est indifférent. Mais il tombe dans un piège, car les autres n’ont rien cédé sur ces faux principes.

C’est dommage, car cela fait tout de même soixante moines, dont une vingtaine de prêtres et trente moniales. II y a presque une centaine de jeunes qui sont là, complètement désemparés et dont les familles sont inquiètes ou même divisées.

C’est désastreux.”

Lors d’une autre allocution, il déclarait :

“Plus on analyse les documents de Vatican II et l’interprétation qu’en ont donnée les autorités de l’Eglise, plus on s’aperçoit qu’il s’agit non seulement de quelques erreurs, l’œcuménisme, la liberté religieuse, la collégialité, un certain libéralisme, mais encore d’une perversion de l’esprit. C’est toute une nouvelle philosophie, basée sur la philosophie moderne du subjectivisme.”

Trente huit ans passés dans un tel paradigme rendent improbable une séparation de nombreux prêtres et religieux avec la Fraternité après ces sacres, quand bien même une autre excommunication serait censée avoir été encourue. Il a été affirmé, toutefois, que cela pourrait ne pas être autant le cas pour les prêtres ordonnés après la “levée des excommunications” de 2009.

Indéniablement, cette levée des excommunications a légitimé la Fraternité aux yeux d’un grand nombre, provocant l’affluence de certaines personnes cherchant la Messe en latin sans partager les positions de la Fraternité sur la Crise de l’Eglise. Il semble probable qu’au moins certaines d’entre elles se sépareront de la Fraternité si l’excommunication est bien confirmée.

Mgr Lefebvre évoqua ce genre de séparations, tant dans le clergé que chez les laïcs, en 1990 :

“Nous n’avons pas à hésiter une minute, si nous voulons ne pas nous retrouver avec ceux qui sont en train de nous trahir. Il y en a qui ont toujours envie de regarder de l’autre côté de la barrière. Ils ne regardent pas du côté des amis, de ceux qui se défendent sur le terrain même du combat, ils regardent toujours un peu du côté de l’ennemi.

Ils disent qu’il faut être charitable, avoir de bons sentiments, qu’il faut éviter les divisions. Après tout, ces gens là disent quand même la bonne messe, ils ne sont pas si mauvais qu’on le dit…

Mais ils nous trahissent. Ils donnent la main à ceux qui démolissent l’Église, à ceux qui ont des idées modernistes et libérales, pourtant condamnées par l’Eglise. Donc maintenant, ils font le travail du diable, eux qui travaillaient avec nous pour le règne de Notre Seigneur et polir le salut des âmes.

« Oh, pourvu qu’on nous accorde la bonne messe, on peut donner la main à Rome, il n’y a pas de problèmes ». Voilà comment ça marche ! Ils sont dans une impasse car on ne peut pas à la fois donner la main aux modernistes et vouloir garder la Tradition.

Qu’on ait des contacts pour les ramener à la Tradition, les convertir, à la rigueur. C’est le bon œcuménisme. Mais donner l’impression qu’on regrette presque, et qu’après tout on irait bien parler avec eux, ce n’est pas possible. Comment parler avec ceux qui maintenant nous disent que nous sommes figés comme des cadavres ? Selon eux, nous ne sommes plus la Tradition vivante, nous sommes des gens tristes, « sans vie et sans joie ». C’est à croire qu’ils n’ont jamais fait partie de la Tradition ! C’est invraisemblable. Comment voulez-vous que l’on puisse avoir des rapports avec ces gens-là ?

C’est ce qui nous pose parfois des problèmes avec certains très bons laïcs, qui sont pour nous et qui ont accepté les sacres, mais qui ont comme une espèce de regret intime de ne plus être avec ceux avec lesquels ils étaient auparavant, ceux qui n’ont pas accepté les sacres et qui maintenant sont coutre nous. « C’est dommage, je voudrais bien aller les retrouver, boire un verre avec eux, leur tendre la main ». Cela c’est de la trahison, parce qu’à la moindre occasion ils partiront avec eux. Il faut savoir ce que l’on veut.”

Ce n’est pas la première fois, depuis 1988

C’est pour la seconde fois que FSSPX va consacrer des évêques depuis les sacres de 1988. Ce fait n’est pas très connu, et il n’en est pas fait état dans la plupart des discussions.

En 1991, peu après les premiers sacres, trois des évêques de la Fraternité sacrèrent l’Abbé Licinio Rangel pour le reste catholique du diocèse de Campos. Le quatrième évêque, Mgr Fellay, et le supérieur général, l’abbé Schmidberger, y assistèrent. Il n’est pas clair si pour ce sacre la permission du Vatican fut demandée.

Mgr Rangel mourut en 2002, après avoir conclu un accord avec le Vatican en 2001.

Dans ce contexte, Fernando Arêas Rifan succéda à Mgr Rangel à la tête de son groupe. Son sacre par le Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos fut rendu certainement valide par la participation de Rangel comme co-consécrateur.

Malgré qu’il ait été l’un des plus vigoureux défenseurs de la Tradition catholique au temps de Mgr de Castro Mayer, et qu’il l’ait assisté lors de la cérémonie des sacres de 1988, Rifan a été photographié en train de concélébrer la messe du Novus Ordo avec François à la résidence Sainte-Marthe.

Le sacre de Mgr Rangel semble être quasiment oublié – bien qu’il ne le soit pas des prêtres ordonnés par lui pour la FSSPX. Il n’était pas mentionné dans le décret de 2009 censé lever les supposées excommunications des quatre évêques de la FSSPX. Il est vrai, cependant, qu’en 2001 le Vatican a fait référence à “l’excommunication encourue le 28 juillet 1991”.

Subscribe now

La validité des sacres

En février, nous évoquions la possibilité de voir sacrés des candidats ordonnés prêtres seulement putativement, avant de devenir membres de la FSSPX. La présente annonce confirme que cela ne sera pas le cas.

Un nombre restreint de membres et de ses collaborateurs de la FSSPX ont été ordonnés dans le nouveau rite d’ordination sacerdotale de Paul VI, ou ordonnés par des hommes dont le sacerdoce ou l’épiscopat dépendrait de la validité des nouveaux rites. Or, il en est parmi eux qui n’ont pas été réordonnés conditionnellement.

Pour des raisons déjà exposées – en accord avec bien des choses que Mgr Lefebvre dit et fit – les ordres putativement conférés dans ces rites sont au mieux douteux.2

C’est précisément ce genre de doute que Mgr Lefebvre a déclaré chercher à éviter par les sacres de 1988, et ce tant pendant la cérémonie elle-même qu’en d’autres occasions.

Potentielles excommunications

À l’approche du mois de juillet, le Vatican a adressé des avertissements à la FSSPX. Le 13 mai 2026 – date qui pourrait avoir été choisie délibérément – le cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández a publié la déclaration suivante :

“Les ordinations épiscopales annoncées par la Fraternité sacerdotale Saint-Pie-X ne bénéficient pas du mandat pontifical correspondant. Ce geste constitue un acte schismatique (Jean-Paul II, Ecclesia Dei, n° 3), et “l’adhésion formelle au schisme constitue une grave offense à Dieu et comporte l’excommunication prévue par le droit de l’Église” (ibid., 5c ; cf. Conseil pontifical pour les textes législatifs, Note explicative, 24 août 1996).”

L’annonce de l’identité des quatre évêques arrive moins de deux semaines après cette déclaration.

Pour l’heure, nous encourageons les lecteurs à prier pour tous les membres du clergés impliqués, ainsi qu’à prier pour une plus large reconnaissance du seul motif qui peut véritablement justifier ces sacres et protéger l’œuvre de la Fraternité Saint-Pie-X, à savoir la vacance prolongée du Saint-Siège.

Further reading:

Archbishop Lefebvre and the Conciliar Church

An updated edit of John Lane’s classic study:

1. What did Archbishop Lefebvre really think about the ‘Conciliar Church’?

2. Did Lefebvre see the Conciliar Church as a separate society to the Catholic Church?

3. Where is the Church today? Archbishop Lefebvre and the Conciliar Church

Archbishop Lefebvre and the Sacraments

Our series examining Archbishop Lefebvre’s words, ideas and deeds in relation to the Novus Ordo sacramental rites:

1. Archbishop Lefebvre & Conditional Confirmations—His pastoral practice explained

2. Archbishop Lefebvre & Conciliar Sacraments—Do they ‘come from the Church?’

3. Archbishop Lefebvre & Conciliar Ordinations—Practical Doubt

Further material:

• ‘I do not hesitate to administer conditional confirmation when asked’—Archbishop Lefebvre

• Classic study radically overstates Lefebvre’s position on holy orders

• Is desiring the sacraments individualistic and emotional? Lefebvre and others answer

Archbishop Lefebvre and ‘The Pope Question’

A series of talks given in 1986 to seminarians and priests:

1. Archbishop Lefebvre: Three dispositions needed by priests and seminarians today

2. Archbishop Lefebvre: ‘Who is this man on the throne of Peter?’

3. +Lefebvre: ‘Any sensible man must ask’ if a heretic is still pope, can discuss with others

Summarised (and some what softened) in an English publication from the time:

• ‘The Archbishop Speaks’ – Mgr Lefebvre on the sede vacante thesis (1986)

Further material:

• +Marcel Lefebvre’s glowing tribute to ‘sedevacantist’ Fr Henri Mouraux

• ‘Medieval peasants didn’t know the pope’s name, why should we care?’ +Lefebvre answers

Various Addresses

Post-Suspension

• Lefebvre’s 1974 Declaration: Tension and the only possible resolution

Lead-up to the Consecrations

• ‘She is neither liberal, nor modernist, nor ecumenical’ – Abp. Lefebvre on Our Lady

(See also above under “The Pope Question”)

Post-Consecrations

• Open Letter from the Superiors of the SSPX – July 1988

• A Few Months after the Consecrations

• ‘The visibility of the Church and the current situation’ (1988)

• One Year after the Consecrations

• Two Years after the Consecrations

• The Last Interview

Articles by our friends

• Archbishop Lefebvre and Sedevacantism (John Daly)

• Archbishop Lefebvre and The Sedevacantist Thesis (John Lane)

• Archbishop Lefebvre and The Conciliar Popes (John Lane)

• Fr. Celier’s Interpretation of Archbishop Lefebvre (John Lane)

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE!

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 from you helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all. Plus, you will get access to our exclusive members-only material.

(We make our members-only material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)

Subscribe now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Subscribe now

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

The names

The SSPX has announced that it will be consecrating the following men to the episcopate on 1 July 2026:

• Fr Pascal Schreiber

• Fr Michael Goldade

• Fr Michel Poinsinet de Sivry

• Fr Marc Hanappier

All these men were formed at SSPX seminaries and ordained by SSPX bishops.

The communiqué stated that the names had been submitted to Leo XIV’s Vatican, along with an explanation as to why these consecrations were necessary. It also stated the the consecrations “do not proceed from any desire to claim a power of jurisdiction or to establish a parallel authority within the Church” – nor a “denial of, refusal of, or challenged to the supreme, full, and immediate power of jurisdiction of the Vicar of Christ over the universal Church.”

“The ceremony of July 1st,” it stated, “will have no other purpose than to ensure the continued administration of the sacraments of Holy Orders and Confirmation, together with those sacramentals reserved to bishops, according to the traditional rite of the Holy Roman Church and the immemorial Faith.”

It also contained brief biographies of each candidate.

Fr Pascal Schreiber

• Swiss

• 53 years of age

• Entered the Zaitzkofen seminary in 1992, before moving to the Écône seminary

• Ordained 1998

• Bursar of the Swiss district for two years from 2014, then made District Superior

• Rector of Zaitzkofen since 2020

• Speaks German, French and English.

Fr Michael Goldade

• American

• 45 years of age

• Studied at the Winona seminary

• Ordained 2004

• Ministered in Armada, Michigan

• Directed the retreat house in Ridgefield

• Prior in Kansas City from 2014

• Official assistant to District Superior from 2021

• Rector of St Thomas Aquinas Seminary (Virginia) from 2023

• Speaks English, has studied French, and has some Spanish.

Fr Michel Poinsinet de Sivry

• French

• 42 years of age

• Studied at Flavigny and Écône

• Ordained 2008

• Worked in French SSPX schools and at Saint Nicolas-du-Chardonnet, Paris

• Directed Saint Jean-Baptiste de La Salle secondary school in Camblain-l’Abbé, Arras from around 2016

• Superior of Benelux District since 2022

• Speaks French and English, and is studying German and Dutch.

Fr Marc Hanappier

• French

• 35 or 36 years old (born in 1990)

• Studied at Flavigny and Écône

• Ordained 2013

• Began his ministry in French SSPX schools

• Spent a year perfecting his English in Scotland (!)

• Seminary professor in Virginia in 2020, teaching metaphysics and dogmatic theology

• Continues with pastoral ministry on Sundays

• Speaks French and English, studied German, has some Spanish.

Subscribe now

Some background to the SSPX and episcopal consecrations

In 1988, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre consecrated the following men to the episcopate against the will of John Paul II:

• Bernard Tissier de Mallerais (French)

• Richard Williamson (English)

• Bernard Fellay (Swiss)

• Alfonso de Galarreta (Spanish/Argentine)

Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1987 letter to the four future bishops gives a succinct account of his rationale for this momentous act:

• ‘Occupied by Antichrists’ – Abp. Lefebvre’s letter to the four bishops, 1987

Following the death of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais in 2024 (and also Bishop Williamson in 2025 – who was expelled in 2012), the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) announced on 2 February 2026 that it would be following in his footsteps and consecrating bishops, apparently without the permission of Leo XIV, on 1 July 2026.

This will mark the second time – and not the first, as many think – that the Society of St Pius X’s bishops have conferred episcopal consecration since 1988.

Excommunications – What happened in 1988

According to canon law, consecration of a bishop without pontifical mandate carries a latae sententiae excommunication for the consecrating and consecrated bishops.

In 1988, the Vatican responded within hours, stating that the six bishops involved (Lefebvre, de Castro Mayer, Fellay, Williamson, de Galarreta and Tissier de Mallerais) had indeed excommunicated themselves. This statement was formalised by the Congregation of Bishops on 1 July 1988.

In response, the District Superiors of the SSPX issued a powerful Open Letter, which stated:

“[W]e have never wished to belong to that system which styles itself the ‘Conciliar Church,’ and which defines itself by the Novus Ordo Missæ, by indifferentist ecumenism, and by the secularisation of the whole of society.

“Yes, we have no part — nullam partem habemus — with the pantheon of religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of your Eminence or of another dicastery would be only the irrefutable proof of this.

“We would ask for nothing better than to be declared ex communione from the adulterous spirit which has blown through the Church for twenty-five years, excluded from the impious communion with unbelievers. […]

“To be therefore publicly associated with the sanction which strikes the six Catholic bishops, defenders of the faith in its integrity and totality, would be for us a mark of honour and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful.

“For these faithful indeed have a strict right to know that the priests to whom they turn do not belong to the communion of a counterfeit Church”

While we agree with the sentiment, we cannot agree with the idea that an excommunication by a true Pope can serve as a badge of honour. The following propositions of the English heretic John Wycliffe were condemned in the letter Super periculosis in 1377:

“A curse or excommunication does not bind absolutely except when it is given against an opponent of the law of Christ.” (DH 1131)1

The true reason – regrettably not recognised – that such excommunications are to be despised, or treated as badge of honours, is that they proceed from men who do not hold papal authority.

Reactions, defections and reconciliations

The consecrations also prompted a number of defections from the SSPX ranks. Aided by former SSPX and former “sedevacantist” Fr Louis-Marie de Blignières (of the Fraternity of St Vincent Ferrer), a number of priests reconciled themselves with the Vatican – and thus, the Fraternity of St Peter was born.

Lefebvre himself focused a lot of attention on the reconciliation of Dom Gerard Calvet and the Benedictine monastery of Le Barroux, who had previously been a collaborator, and Le Barroux was made an Abbey. In one of his denunciations of Dom Gerard, Archbishop Lefebvre said:

“Dom Gérard has always seen only the liturgy and monastic life. He does not see clearly the theological problems of the Council, of religious liberty. He does not see the malice of these errors. He has never been greatly concerned with that. What affected him was the liturgical reform, the reform of the Benedictine monasteries. He left Tournay saying: “I cannot accept that.” So he re-established a community of monks with the liturgy, in the Benedictine spirit. Very well, it was splendid.

“But I think he did not sufficiently measure that those reforms which had led him to leave his monastery were the consequence of the errors that are in the Council. Provided that he is granted what he was seeking, that monastic spirit and the traditional liturgy, he has what he wants and the rest is indifferent to him. But he falls into a trap, for the others have conceded nothing on those false principles.

“It is a pity, for it still involves sixty monks, about twenty priests among them, and thirty nuns. There are almost a hundred young people there, completely disoriented, and whose families are worried or even divided.

“It is disastrous.”

In another address, he said:

“The more one analyzes the documents of Vatican II, and the more one analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that what is at stake is not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism.”

38 years of operating in this paradigm makes it unlikely that many priests or religious will cease collaborating with the SSPX following these consecrations, even if another excommunication is alleged to have been incurred. It has been suggested that this may not hold so consistently for those ordained since the “lifting of the excommunications” in 2009.

However, the lifting of the excommunications legitimised the SSPX in the eyes of many, leading to an influx of a certain number of persons seeking the Latin Mass, without sharing the SSPX’s perspective on the Crisis in the Church. It seems probable that at least some of these persons will detach themselves from the SSPX if excommunications are indeed declared.

Archbishop Lefebvre spoke of such departures, both lay and clerical, in 1990:

“And we must not waver for one moment either in not being with those who are in the process of betraying us. Some people are always admiring the grass in the neighbor’s field. Instead of looking to their friends, to the Church’s defenders, to those fighting on the battlefield, they look to our enemies on the other side. ‘After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says’—but they are betraying us—betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church’s destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil’s work.

“Thus those who were with us and were working with us for the rights of Our Lord, for the salvation of souls, are now saying, ‘So long as they grant us the old Mass, we can shake hands with Rome, no problem.’ But we are seeing how it works out. They are in an impossible situation. Impossible. One cannot both shake hands with modernists and keep following Tradition. Not possible. Not possible.

“Now, stay in touch with them to bring them back, to convert them to Tradition, yes, if you like, that’s the right kind of ecumenism! But give the impression that after all one almost regrets any break, that one likes talking to them? No way! These are people who call us corpse-like traditionalists, they are saying that we are as rigid as corpses, ours is not a living Tradition, we are glum-faced, ours is a glum Tradition! Unbelievable! Unimaginable! What kind of relations can you have with people like that?

“This is what causes us a problem with certain layfolk, who are very nice, very good people, all for the Society, who accepted the Consecrations, but who have a kind of deep-down regret that they are no longer with the people they used to be with, people who did not accept the Consecrations and who are now against us. ‘It’s a pity we are divided’, they say, ‘why not meet up with them? Let’s go and have a drink together, reach out a hand to them’—that’s a betrayal! Those saying this give the impression that at the drop of a hat they would cross over and join those who left us. They must make up their minds.”

Not the first time

This will be the second time the SSPX have consecrated bishops since 1988 – a little known fact, that is forgotten in much of the discussion.

In 1991, soon after the first consecrations, three of the SSPX bishops consecrated Fr Licínio Rangel for the Catholic remnant in the Dioceses of Campos. Both the fourth bishop (Bishop Fellay), and the Superior General (Fr Schmidberger), were in attendance. It is unclear whether permission was sought from the Vatican for this consecration.

Bishop Rangel died in 2002, having come to an agreement with the Vatican in 2001.

Rangel was succeeded, within those structures, by Fernando Arêas Rifan, whose consecration by Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos was rendered certainly valid by Rangel’s presence as co-consecrator. Although he was one of the most stalwart defenders of tradition under de Castro Mayer, and assisted him in 1988, Rifan was pictured concelebrating the Novus Ordo Mass with Francis at Casa Santa Marta.

This consecration almost seems to have been forgotten – although not by the priests whom Rangel himself ordained for the SSPX. It was not mentioned in the 2009 decree purporting to remit the alleged excommunications of the four bishops – although in 2001, the Vatican did refer to “the excommunication incurred on 28 July 1991.”

Subscribe now

Validity of orders

In February, we noted the possibility that the SSPX would consecrate men who had putatively received their Holy Orders prior to joining the SSPX. This announcement confirms that this will not be the case.

A small number of SSPX members and collaborators were ordained using Paul VI’s new rite of priestly ordination, or by men whose own priestly or episcopal orders also depended on the validity of the reformed rites – and not all of them have been conditionally ordained.

For reasons explained elsewhere, supported by much of what Archbishop Lefebvre said and did, orders putatively conferred using these rites are at best doubtful.2

Such doubt is precisely what Archbishop Lefebvre stated that he was trying to avoid by the 1988 consecrations, both at the ceremony itself and on other occasions.

Potential Excommunications

In the lead up to July 2026, the Vatican issued warnings to the SSPX. On 13th May 2026 – a date which may have been deliberately chosen – Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández issued the following statement:

“With regard to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, we reiterate what has already been communicated. The episcopal ordinations announced by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X do not have the requisite papal mandate. This act will constitute “a schismatic act” (John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei, no. 3) and “formal adherence to the schism constitutes a grave offence against God and entails the excommunication established under Church law” (ibid., 5c; cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Explanatory Note, 24 August 1996).”

The announcement of the four future bishops comes less than two weeks after this statement.

In the meantime, we encourage readers to pray for all involved – and for the greater recognition of what alone can truly justify these episcopal consecrations and protect the work of the Society of St Pius X, namely the extended vacancy of the Holy See.

Further reading:

Archbishop Lefebvre and the Conciliar Church

An updated edit of John Lane’s classic study:

1. What did Archbishop Lefebvre really think about the ‘Conciliar Church’?

2. Did Lefebvre see the Conciliar Church as a separate society to the Catholic Church?

3. Where is the Church today? Archbishop Lefebvre and the Conciliar Church

Archbishop Lefebvre and the Sacraments

Our series examining Archbishop Lefebvre’s words, ideas and deeds in relation to the Novus Ordo sacramental rites:

1. Archbishop Lefebvre & Conditional Confirmations—His pastoral practice explained

2. Archbishop Lefebvre & Conciliar Sacraments—Do they ‘come from the Church?’

3. Archbishop Lefebvre & Conciliar Ordinations—Practical Doubt

Further material:

• ‘I do not hesitate to administer conditional confirmation when asked’—Archbishop Lefebvre

• Classic study radically overstates Lefebvre’s position on holy orders

• Is desiring the sacraments individualistic and emotional? Lefebvre and others answer

Archbishop Lefebvre and ‘The Pope Question’

A series of talks given in 1986 to seminarians and priests:

1. Archbishop Lefebvre: Three dispositions needed by priests and seminarians today

2. Archbishop Lefebvre: ‘Who is this man on the throne of Peter?’

3. +Lefebvre: ‘Any sensible man must ask’ if a heretic is still pope, can discuss with others

Summarised (and some what softened) in an English publication from the time:

• ‘The Archbishop Speaks’ – Mgr Lefebvre on the sede vacante thesis (1986)

Further material:

• +Marcel Lefebvre’s glowing tribute to ‘sedevacantist’ Fr Henri Mouraux

• ‘Medieval peasants didn’t know the pope’s name, why should we care?’ +Lefebvre answers

Various Addresses

Post-Suspension

• Lefebvre’s 1974 Declaration: Tension and the only possible resolution

Lead-up to the Consecrations

• ‘She is neither liberal, nor modernist, nor ecumenical’ – Abp. Lefebvre on Our Lady

(See also above under “The Pope Question”)

Post-Consecrations

• Open Letter from the Superiors of the SSPX – July 1988

• A Few Months after the Consecrations

• ‘The visibility of the Church and the current situation’ (1988)

• One Year after the Consecrations

• Two Years after the Consecrations

• The Last Interview

Articles by our friends

• Archbishop Lefebvre and Sedevacantism (John Daly)

• Archbishop Lefebvre and The Sedevacantist Thesis (John Lane)

• Archbishop Lefebvre and The Conciliar Popes (John Lane)

• Fr. Celier’s Interpretation of Archbishop Lefebvre (John Lane)

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE!

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 from you helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all. Plus, you will get access to our exclusive members-only material.

(We make our members-only material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)

Subscribe now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Subscribe now

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

‘Pestiferous heresy’?

In a sermon on the Ascension, seemingly published on Ascension Thursday or the following Sunday, Fr Chad Ripperger has described “sedevacantism” as a “pestiferous heresy”. “Sedevacantism” is a name given to the theological position that the post-conciliar claimants have lacked papal authority since at least 1965.

In many cases, it is best to pass over accusations of this kind. In his Introduction to the Devout Life, the Saint and Doctor of the Church St Francis de Sales – himself an authority for the opinion of ipso facto loss of office – advises his readers how to respond to accusations. He says that we should not be “over-nice in regard to the preservation of our good name”, and that “overlooking and despising of an injury or calumny is, generally speaking, by far a more effectual remedy.”1

However, the Saint and Doctor of the Church concludes the relevant chapter as follows:

“I except, nevertheless, certain crimes, so horrid and infamous, that no man ought to suffer the false imputation of them, if he can justly acquit himself; and also certain persons, on whose reputation depends the edification of many; for in these cases, according to the opinion of divines, we must quietly seek a reparation of the wrong received.”2

Heresy is one such crime.

The seriousness of the charge

When culpable, heresy is a mortal sin: it destroys the life of grace in the soul. But heresy is not just one mortal sin among others: under certain circumstances, it severs a man from the body of the Church. In other words, he ceases to be Catholic and a member of the Church.

Although this latter effect does not arise from the gravity of the sin alone, it is indeed one of the worst mortal sins of which man is capable. In The Precious Blood, Fr Frederick William Faber wrote:

“The crowning disloyalty to God is heresy. It is the sin of sins.”3

St Thomas Aquinas explains that it is a part of the sin of unbelief, which he describes as follows:

“Every sin consists formally in aversion from God, as stated above. Hence the more a sin severs man from God, the graver it is. Now man is more than ever separated from God by unbelief, because he has not even true knowledge of God: and by false knowledge of God, man does not approach Him, but is severed from Him.

“Nor is it possible for one who has a false opinion of God, to know Him in any way at all, because the object of his opinion is not God. Therefore it is clear that the sin of unbelief is greater than any sin that occurs in the perversion of morals.”4

Elsewhere, St Thomas explains why such sins are, in a certain sense, more wicked than murder:

“If we compare murder and blasphemy as regards the objects of those sins, it is clear that blasphemy, which is a sin committed directly against God, is more grave than murder, which is a sin against one’s neighbor. On the other hand, if we compare them in respect of the harm wrought by them, murder is the graver sin, for murder does more harm to one’s neighbor, than blasphemy does to God.

“Since, however, the gravity of a sin depends on the intention of the evil will, rather than on the effect of the deed, as was shown above, it follows that, as the blasphemer intends to do harm to God’s honor, absolutely speaking, he sins more grievously that the murderer. Nevertheless murder takes precedence, as to punishment, among sins committed against our neighbor.”5

In short, an accusation of heresy is a much graver affair than one of murder – or indeed sodomy, fraud, and so on.

Further, as we shall see, Fr Ripperger openly admits that he is using the term “heresy” in an antiquated and equivocal (and therefore rhetorical) way. This is, I submit, unjust and irresponsible.

Given the gravity of the accusation and the prominence of the accuser, it is necessary to offer a response. In so doing, I shall attempt to maintain St Francis de Sales’ spirit throughout, and respectfully explain why Fr Ripperger’s claim is incorrect.

The relevant extract

Here is the relevant section of the sermon:

“As Vatican I said, the pope is the perpetual principle of unity, so that it remains in perpetuity until Christ returns. In other words, once the death of last pope [happens], Christ returns to assume the visible headship again.

“Now, this is quite important because this visible headship is perpetual. The Church is, as they say, it is not anacephalic [sic]. It does not lack a head. It’s not like a chicken that, after Vatican II, its head was lopped off and it’s running around amok. Now, there might be some things running around amok, but it’s not the Church. It’s the members of the Church.

“And what does this all mean? It means that the Church will always have a pope until the last one dies and Christ reassumes the headship. The pestiferous heresy of sedevacantism is a denial of the de fide proposition by the Church that the papacy is the perpetual principle of unity.

“And this is all wrapped up in the Ascension. Why? Because right before the Ascension, this headship is passed on.

“This notion that there isn’t a pope is a novelty. It has never, in the entire history of the Church, ever been proposed that you could go an extended period of time without a pope. In the early Church, novelty was another name for heresy.”

Let us break down the sermon and consider its claims.

Perpetual Principle of Unity

“As Vatican I said, the pope is the perpetual principle of unity, so that it remains in perpetuity until Christ returns. In other words, once the death of last pope [happens], Christ returns to assume the visible headship again.”

There are two points to raise here.

First, Fr Ripperger correctly notes that the Pope is the “perpetual principle of unity.” Here is what Vatican I teaches:

“In order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided and that the whole multitude of believers might be preserved in unity of faith and communion by means of a closely united priesthood, he placed St. Peter at the head of the other apostles and established in him a perpetual principle and visible foundation of this twofold unity, in order that on his strength an everlasting temple might be erected and on the firmness of his faith a Church might arise whose pinnacle was to reach into heaven.”

In other words, Our Lord makes the Pope the “perpetual principle” in order that “the whole multitude of believers might be preserved in unity of faith and communion”; he is to be the “visible foundation of this twofold unity.”

But if Paul VI and his successors have been true Popes, then why is the body over which they preside manifestly divided in faith? And given that communion depends on the external profession of faith, how can there be a unity of communion if there is a disunity of faith?

Pope Leo XIII calls the Pope the “efficient cause of unity” – a concept which I have discussed elsewhere.

• ‘Totem Pope’—Does the mere election of a pope fulfil Christ’s promises?

Fr Ripperger’s analysis of the situation suggests, on the contrary, that Christ instituted an inefficient cause of unity.

I have also addressed this matter in detail in Zero Marks, Chapter I:

• Disunited in Faith: Why the Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church

Subscribe now

Second Coming at the moment of the last Pope’s death

The second point to raise about this extract is that Fr Ripperger seems to imply that Our Lord will not return until the last Pope dies.

Now, he is either a) suggesting that the Second Coming will occur immediately at this moment, or b) following the elapse of time after the death. But given the rest of his commentary, it seems that Fr Ripperger is alleging the former.

However, there seems to be nothing preventing Our Lord’s return during the reign of the last Pope, or indeed sometime after his death. Fr Ripperger makes his point very confidently, but without the authorities or argument needed to prove it.

Fr Ripperger proceeds:

“Now, this is quite important because this visible headship is perpetual. The Church is, as they say, it is not anacephalic [sic]. It does not lack a head. It’s not like a chicken that, after Vatican II, its head was lopped off and it’s running around amok. Now, there might be some things running around amok, but it’s not the Church. It’s the members of the Church.”

We are all in agreement that “it’s not the Church” that is “running around amok”, but Fr Ripperger is mistaken to attribute the post-Vatican II chaos to just “members of the Church.” The chaos is directly attributable to a) what the supposed popes and hierarchy have done (namely, impose errors and harmful laws); and b) what they have failed to do (namely, teach and govern with authority).

Fr Ripperger continues:

“And what does this all mean? It means that the Church will always have a pope until the last one dies and Christ reassumes the headship. The pestiferous heresy of sedevacantism is a denial of the de fide proposition by the Church that the papacy is the perpetual principle of unity.”

As I have already stated, “sedevacantists” do not deny that the Pope is the “perpetual principle of unity.”

If Fr Ripperger wants to assert that our conclusions entail or imply such a denial, he should make those arguments; but if he could make this case, he would merely prove that it is proximate to heresy, not heresy itself.

In any case, “sedevacantists” are effectively the only ones who recognise this dogma and its implications; indeed, it is one reason for concluding that the post-conciliar claimants have lacked papal authority. By contrast, those who assert the full legitimacy of the post-conciliar claimants, amidst the radical doctrinal disunity of the age, are the ones who are implicitly denying the point in question.

The charge itself

He continues:

“And this is all wrapped up in the Ascension. Why? Because right before the Ascension, this headship is passed on.6 This notion that there isn’t a pope is a novelty.”

Indeed, “the notion that there isn’t a pope” is, in a certain sense, obviously a “novelty”, in that it is a statement of fact pertaining to our contemporary situation.

“It has never, in the entire history of the Church, ever been proposed that you could go an extended period of time without a pope. In the early Church, novelty was another name for heresy.”

The use of the word “heresy” in the early Church was very broad, and to use it in an anachronistic sense – as he states he is doing – is a rhetorical attack, which cannot help but mislead. As we have already seen, an accusation of heresy is a much graver affair than one of murder, sodomy, fraud, and other crimes which we would shrink to impute to others without serious grounds.

This is even more evident when we consider that Fr Ripperger bases his claims on false premises – that an extended vacancy is impossible, and has never been countenanced “in the entire history of the Church”.

Subscribe now

Extended vacancy

The Church can indeed suffer interregna, because the perpetuity of successors is a moral and juridical continuity, rather than a physical continuity like that of the English Monarchy (in which the designated heir becomes the monarch ipso facto upon the death of the previous).

Fr Ripperger’s words appear to assert such a physical continuity, which – as he no doubt knows – is incorrect. On the contrary, the perpetuity in question does not entail that there is always, at every moment, being a living Pope, Rather, it consists in the perpetuity of the Roman See and a series of successors, even if the election and accession of a successor is delayed by extrinsic causes.7 Further, this perpetuity is not even jeopardised by doubtful or even illegitimate claimants occupying the See.8

There is an equivocation over the phrase “could go an extended period of time without a Pope.” That this could happen as a matter of indifference, I deny; that it could happen as a matter of fact, with the dire consequences which characterise our time, I concede.

It is also mistaken to suggest that “It has never, in the entire history of the Church, ever been proposed that you could go an extended period of time without a pope.”

Theologians on the duration of a vacancy

First, theologians have indeed proposed that the Church could suffer an extended period of vacancy. For example, Cardinal Billot wrote:

“By all means God can permit that at some time or other the vacancy of the see be extended for a considerable time.”9

Following Billot, Fr E. Sylvester Berry wrote:

“In place of this supreme authority, the Church has the right and the duty of selecting someone upon whom Christ will again bestow it. It is evident, then, that the Apostolic succession cannot fail in the Apostolic See so long as the Church herself continues to exist, for although the see be vacant for many years, the Church always retains the right to elect a legitimate successor, who then obtains supreme authority according to the institution of Christ.”10

The theologian Fr Palmieri answers the following objection:

“Objection 2°. Even when the Roman Pontiff is lacking for several years, the Church remains one and the same as before.”11

After addressing the various points, he presents his summary conclusion without at all disputing the possibility of the extended vacancy:

“Therefore, if it is said that, when the Roman Pontiff is lacking, the Church still remains the same and one, I distinguish: completely, I deny; incompletely, and in such a way that it is still one because of its subordination to the power of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff, so that he by his authority is in the Church the efficient principle of unity, I concede.”12

The theologian Fr Raphael Cercia SJ addresses another objection against the dogma of Peter’s “perpetual successors”:

“Objection III. Yet in the series, there occur not so much doubtful pontiffs, but rather frequent interruptions, on account of the see being vacant for a long time. Therefore, etc.”13

Cercia answers:

“Resp. I distinguish the antecedent. Frequent interruptions occur which have the true character of an interruption of the series: I deny; which were a simpler, shorter or longer vacancy of the Roman see: I concede.

“For Christ promised the perpetuity of the succession in such a way as to show that He would efficaciously prevent all things that could indeed truly interrupt the series of the succession — but not, upon inspecting everything, that which would merely delay the institution of a successor. Therefore nothing can be concluded in itself from a vacancy of the see, however long, until it be proved that that vacancy had the characteristics of a true interruption.”14

If Fr Ripperger wishes to assert that our conclusions represent “a true interruption”, then he may present his arguments: but as it stands, his claim that an extended vacancy is a heresy is incorrect.

Fr Straub also makes the following points:

“Assuredly, the visibility of the Church requires that its head be visible per se; and it is not incompatible with this that the head should, per accidens, not be seen for some time when disturbances have been stirred up.

“And indeed, the see of the primacy can be doubtfully occupied for years, no less than it can be plainly vacant.

“Nor should any other measure rightly be assigned to the duration of such a doubt – or equally of such a vacancy – than one which, if exceeded, would mean that the at least morally perpetual continuation of the primacy of Peter, or of the exercise of the primacy necessary for the preservation of the Church, would be at an end […]”15

Dom Prosper Guéranger also mentioned the possibility of an extended vacancy:

“A Decius may succeed in causing a four years’ vacancy in the See of Rome; anti-popes may arise, supported by popular favour, or upheld by the policy of Emperors; a long schism may render it difficult to know the real Pontiff amidst the several who claim it: the Holy Spirit will allow the trial to have its course, and, whilst it lasts, will keep up the faith of his children; the day will come when he will declare the lawful Pastor of the flock, and the whole Church will enthusiastically acknowledge him as such.”16

In another work, on the Apocalypse, Fr Berry also suggests that the final days will include an extended vacancy:

“It is now the hour of the powers of darkness. The new-born Son of the Church is ‘taken to God and His throne.’ Scarcely has the newly elected Pope been enthroned when he is snatched away by martyrdom.

“The ‘mystery of iniquity’ gradually developing through the centuries, cannot be fully consummated while the power of the Papacy endures, but now he that ‘withholdeth is taken out of the way.’ During the interregnum ‘that wicked one shall be revealed’ in his fury against the Church.”17

He continues:

“It is a matter of history that the most disastrous periods for the Church were times when the Papal throne was vacant, or when anti-popes contended with the legitimate head of the Church. Thus also shall it be in those evil days to come.

“The Church deprived of her chief pastor must seek sanctuary in solitude there to be guided by God Himself during those trying days.”18

He adds further down:

“Antichrist and his prophet will introduce ceremonies to imitate the Sacraments of the Church. In fact there will be a complete organization — a church of Satan set up in opposition to the Church of Christ. Satan will assume the part of God the Father; Antichrist will be honored as Savior, and his prophet will usurp the role of Pope.”19

Fr Herman Bernard Kramer, in his work on the Apocalypse, also held that this section referred to a papal election conducted under great pressure – and he adds:

“This would suppose an extremely hostile mind in the governments of Europe towards the Church and would cause intense anguish to the Church, because an extended interregnum in the papacy is always disastrous and more so in a time of universal persecution. If Satan would contrive to hinder a papal election, the Church would suffer great travail.”20

At another point in the same work, Fr Kramer writes:

“Satan knows how extensively an interregnum in the papacy would favor his success in recovering his ancient lordship over the world. (See 2 Thess II. 7).”21

In short, Fr Ripperger’s claim that “sedevacantists” are heretics, because “never, in the entire history of the Church, ever been proposed that you could go an extended period of time without a pope”, is demonstrably incorrect.

Subscribe now

Vacancies in history

In addition to theologians expressly recognising the possibility of an extended vacancy, there have actually been such periods in history. My colleague Matthew McCusker summarised the matter as follows:

“The longest vacancy in history, prior to the present period, probably lasted for more than three years. The second longest was two years and fourth months.

“The first followed the death of Pope Clement IV in November 1268. The cause of this extended vacancy was disagreement between the cardinals, particularly between French and non-French cardinals, and was related to political and military conflict between European powers.

“It was two years and nine months until the Archdeacon of Liege, Teobaldi Visconti, was elected on September 1, 1271. It was still longer until he received news of his election and accepted the office. As far as we can ascertain from the historical record, he did not publicly accept the office until he had met with the College of Cardinals at some point in February 1272. Therefore, the See should probably be considered vacant during those five months also. He was finally consecrated a bishop and crowned as Pope Gregory X on March 12, 1272.

“A vacancy of similar length lasted between July 4, 1415 and November 11, 1417, between the resignation of the Roman and Pisan claimants to the papacy and the election of Pope Martin V. These resignations, and the consequent election, more or less resolved the Great Western Schism.”22

These vacancies have not been as long as ours, but that is not the point. Fr Ripperger is asserting that there cannot be any kind of extended vacancy, and this is disproved by the facts. There seems to be no basis in divine revelation, the teaching of the Church, or the approved Fathers, Doctors and theologians, for putting a specific time limit on how long a vacancy could last – and the burden of proof is on the one attempting to assert such a limit.

To summarise the overall point, the nineteenth century theologian Fr Edmund O’Reilly SJ, Professor of Theology and described as “one of the first theologians of the day” and a “great authority” by John Henry Cardinal Newman,23 wrote the following:

“The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be.

“Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning.

“We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. 

“All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.”24

Conclusion

All in all, we have seen that Fr Ripperger:

• Correctly notes that the Popes are the “perpetual principle of unity” – and yet in alleging that Paul VI and his successors are the Popes, implicitly treats the Papacy as an inefficient cause of unity, which has been unable to secure any kind of unity of faith or charity over the last sixty years.

• Implies that Our Lord will not return until the moment of the last pope’s death, whereas this is far from clear. In fact, he appears to argue in a circle, implicitly supporting the claim that an extended vacancy is impossible by his idea of Our Lord’s return, and in turn supporting this idea by the impossibility of an extended vacancy.

• Accuses “sedevacantists” of “pestiferous heresy” by denying the truth that the papacy is the perpetual principle of unity, whereas they acknowledge both the dogma and its implications – whereas these are flagrantly ignored and denied by those who insist that Paul VI and his successors have been true Popes over a period of profound doctrinal disunity.

• Attributes the chaos of the post-conciliar epoch to “members of the Church”, whereas it was caused principally by those who apparently held the supreme authority, and in their apparently authoritative acts.

• Asserts that the possibility of an extended vacancy has never been proposed in the history of the Church, and is thus a novelty and therefore, in a confessedly rhetorical flourish, a heresy – whereas theologians and history demonstrate that an extended vacancy is in fact possible.

As I have stated several times, the charge of heresy – even if merely rhetorical – is the most serious of all these points. And yet, in spite of its gravity, Fr Ripperger does not substantiate his charge of heresy. As such, his characterisation of “sedevacantism” as a “pestiferous heresy” is unjustified, as well as unjust.

To close, let us recall the Holy Office’s prohibition, issued under Innocent XI in 1679:

“Finally, in order that the doctors or scholastics and all others may refrain from injurious disputes in the future and that peace and charity may be served, the same most holy pontiff orders them, in virtue of holy obedience, that both in books to be printed and in manuscripts and also in theses, disputations, and sermons, to guard against any censure and any reproach, as well as all invectives against those propositions which up till now still continue to be debated among Catholics, until the Holy See, after examining the matter, renders a judgment on these same propositions.”25

To my knowledge, the closest thing to a “censure” which the post-conciliar Vatican has issued against “sedevacantists” is that of “mushrooms”.26

Subscribe now

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!

Subscribe now

Donate

Lovely Mugs

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

Read Next:

Follow us elsewhere:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• The Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram

Author’s Notes

This is the Conclusion and Appendix of my “book”, ‘Zero Marks’ – Why the Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Catholic Church – summarising the text, and giving an overview of the late Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais’ different approach to the same question.

Zero Marks is Part II 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.”

As Zero Marks is very long and detailed (over 30,000 words), we first published it in full for WM+ members, and have been releasing each of the five chapters (and now the conclusion) separately for all readers.

Other resources

I discussed this chapter with Stephen Kokx over at Integrity Magazine:

Other parts in the Zero Marks series:

• ‘Radically insufficient’ – Reply to Fr Crean on the Church’s visibility, Part I

• ‘Zero Marks’ – Why the Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Catholic Church (Reply to Fr Thomas Crean) (All chapters and conclusion)

  • Chapter I: Disunited in Faith: Why the Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church

  • Chapter II: ‘Comprehensive Rejection’: Is the Conciliar/Synodal Church visibly holy?

  • Chapter III: Is the Conciliar/Synodal Church Catholic?

  • Chapter IV: Apostolic succession in the Conciliar/Synodal Church?

  • Chapter V: Ruptures with apostolic doctrine and origin shows the Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Catholic Church

Thesis Statement

As usual, I once again restate my definition of the Conciliar/Synodal Church, my thesis, and a necessary clarification:

• Definition: By “Conciliar/Synodal Church,” I mean the body of men who recognise Leo XIV as their Pope and spiritual leader, claim to be subject to him, and whom he (and his officers) recognise as being in good standing with him.

• Thesis: The Conciliar/Synodal Church, considered as such, is not the Roman Catholic Church.

• Clarification: By “not the Roman Catholic Church”, I mean that this body of men, considered as such, is not identical with the Roman Catholic Church. Taken as defined, it is a body composed of both Catholics and non-Catholics and lacks certain essential properties of the Roman Catholic Church; for this reason, it cannot be identified with that Church. The thesis therefore concerns the identity and nature of the body itself, considered as a social reality or accidental aggregation, rather than the status of the individuals within it. It does not deny the continued visibility of the Catholic Church; rather, it denies that this visibility, and membership of the Church, are determined by the boundaries of the Conciliar/Synodal Church as defined. Accordingly, it does not imply a) that this body constitutes a false sect (since it is an accidental aggregation of Catholics and non-Catholics, rather than a true society); b) that no Catholics exist within it; or c) that a man ceases to be a Catholic simply by being included in this body. Some of these points are clarified in Zero Marks, or will be clarified further elsewhere.

Subscribe now

Conclusion to ‘Zero Marks’

With reference to the properties and notes of unity, holiness, sanctity and apostolicity, we have demonstrated that the Conciliar/Synodal Church is both not distinctly visible as the Catholic Church, and that it is visibly not the Catholic Church.

• Unity: The Conciliar/Synodal Church is visibly divided in faith, teaching, worship, and discipline; open rejection of divinely revealed doctrine is treated as compatible with membership. This is incompatible with the Church’s necessary unity.

• Holiness: Unholy doctrines and practices are tolerated or promoted. This goes beyond obscuration to a failure of the property itself.

• Catholicity: Though widely diffused, the Conciliar/Synodal Church has renounced catholicity of right by a programme towards certain sects which repudiates the need for conversion, implying that whole classes of men need not enter the Church for salvation. A society that abandons this mandate may be diffused, but this diffusion does not manifest the property of catholicity.

• Apostolicity: The current crisis and the state of the question mean that material succession to the Papacy cannot resolve the question as it might at other times. Apostolicity exists for apostolic authority and doctrinal continuity; yet authority is habitually set aside, and apostolic doctrine teaching has been contradicted, also entailing rupture with apostolic identity. Under these circumstances, material succession cannot manifest the property of apostolicity.

How did this happen? John Lane explained the period following Vatican II as follows:

“Effectively, Paul VI refused to govern in a manner that would permit Catholics to obey him. We could obey him and cease being practicing Catholics; or we could continue practicing the divinely revealed religion and in those very acts disobey. But he did this. The traditionalists didn’t.

“The traditional Catholics didn’t step forward and usurp authority and make judgements, they merely continued practicing the Catholic religion. The physical motion was on their side, it is true, in that it was the traditionalists who ceased attending their local parish church, but the moral movement was all on the other side – the side of Paul VI and his bishops. And it is the moral motion that matters, obviously.”1

For these reasons, Fr Crean’s description of those who reject Vatican II’s moral movement away from the Catholic Church, and have grouped themselves around clergy who have remained faithful, applies to the Conciliar/Synodal Church itself:

“… the ruins of a city, from which men had taken bricks and stones to fashion for themselves a hovel in the valley.”

This comment formed part of a rhetorical dilemma which Fr Crean posed at the end of this article, effectively stating that if we are correct about the extended vacancy of the Holy See, then the conclusions which he incorrectly believes flow from this vacancy essentially “falsify” the Church. Thus, Fr Crean claims, either Leo XIV is the Pope and the Conciliar/Synodal Church is the Catholic Church, or there is no Church at all.

In the first part of my response, I noted the following:

“In general, I consider this attempt to create a dilemma extremely dangerous (including for men of our own position). Under ordinary circumstances, arguments like this might be legitimate, but the nature of the present crisis has meant that it has actually led men of both ‘sedevacantist’ and sedeplenist conclusions to abandon the Catholic Church altogether.”

As we reach the end of this lengthy second part, the problems caused by Fr Crean’s rhetorical dilemma should be apparent.

I believe that I have succeeded in demonstrating that the Conciliar/Synodal Church, taken as such, is not the Catholic Church. It is my hope that I have also succeeded in convincing Fr Crean of this fact. But if I have, then I must ask him the following questions:

If the Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Catholic Church, are you so attached to the idea that it was, that you are now prepared to give up the Catholic faith in its entirety, as your rhetorical dilemma would require?

Are you more attached to the idea that the Conciliar/Synodal Church is the Roman Catholic Church, than you are to the Roman Catholic Church herself?

For my part, I am neither so prepared nor attached. Anyone who would lose the faith over this crisis, and turn either to one of the false Eastern sects, to Protestantism, or to any other false religion (or even atheism) evidently lacks the love of truth proper to a Catholic.

Further, as Fr Crean no doubt is aware, the theological virtue of faith enjoys a supernatural certitude. Vatican I taught the following:

“[T]he situation of those, who by the heavenly gift of faith have embraced the Catholic truth, is by no means the same as that of those who, led by human opinions, follow a false religion; for those who have accepted the faith under the guidance of the Church can never have any just cause for changing this faith or for calling it into question.”

It states this in the form of a canon:

“If anyone says that the condition of the faithful and those who have not yet attained to the only true faith is alike, so that Catholics may have a just cause for calling in doubt, by suspending their assent, the faith which they have already received from the teaching of the Church, until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith: let him be anathema.”

The faith is of a different order of certainty to the legitimacy of particular papal claimants – at least during periods of such extreme doctrinal turmoil, wherein we do not have recourse to the universal and peaceful adherence of the Church. As Archbishop Lefebvre said in 1976:

“[I]f it appears certain to us that the faith which was taught by the Church for twenty centuries cannot contain error, we have much less of an absolute certitude that the Pope be truly Pope.”2

The very idea that the claims of the Roman Catholic Church could be falsified is simply monstrous. As such, the discovery that the Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Catholic Church should not give rise to any doubt or disturbance at all, but merely a renewal of the act of the faith, and a proceeding to the next question: Where, then, is the Catholic Church?

In fact, the claims of the Catholic Church cannot be falsified. I explain the problems with this rhetorical argument here:

• Divine faith does not admit ‘falsification events’ for the Church

However, Fr Crean is correct in stating that the Church is indefectible, and must be perpetually visible – even if he does not account for the extent to which she may be obscured. I affirm that this same Roman Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation, remains in the world with all of her essential properties intact.

In the next part, we will analyse the particular claims of the article, and – with God’s help – explain why we must affirm that this same Roman Catholic Church still exists. This is not so in spite of the extended vacancy of the Holy See: it is so only on the basis of this vacancy.

Subscribe now

Appendix

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais and the ‘four causes’ of the Conciliar Church

While we have been considering the question from that of the four properties of the Church, Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais of the SSPX took a different approach in his 2013 essay Is there a conciliar church? – that of the “four causes” of scholastic metaphysics.3

Here is how he delineated the distinctions between the Catholic Church and what he called the Conciliar Church:

Let us try first of all to define the two churches in question, by their four causes according to Aristotle. A society is a moral being, of the [philosophical] category of relation. Relations create the link between its members. We can distinguish:

• The material cause: These are the persons united to each other within the society.

  • We will say that in the case of the Catholic Church, as in the conciliar church, these are the baptised.

• The efficient cause is the head of the society:

  • For the Catholic Church, Our Lord Jesus Christ, it’s founder, and the Popes who are his vicars; and

  • For the conciliar church, the Popes of the Council, therefore the same Popes; in such a way that the same hierarchy seems to govern the two Churches.

• The final cause, which is the cause of causes, the common good sought by its members:

  • In the case of the Catholic Church, the good sought is eternal salvation

  • In the case of the conciliar church, it is more or less principally the unity of the human race: “The Church”, says the Council, “is in Christ as the sacrament or, if you will, the sign and the means to attain the intimate union with God and the unity of the human race.”

• The formal cause is the union of minds and wills of its members in seeking the common good.

  • In the Catholic Church, by the profession of the same Catholic faith, the practices of the same Divine worship and the submission to the same pastors and therefore to the laws they make, that is Canon law.

  • In the conciliar church, it is by acceptation of the teaching of the Council and the magisterium which comes from it, and by the practice of the new liturgy and obedience to the new Canon law.

[Sub-bullet points added for clarity of reading]

From this delineations, he defined the “two churches” as follows:

• The Catholic Church is the society of the baptised who want to save their souls in professing the Catholic faith, in practising the same Catholic worship and in following the same pastors, successors of the Apostles.

• The conciliar church is the society of the baptised who follow the directives of the current Popes and bishops, in espousing more or less consciously the intention to bring about the unity of the human race, and in practise accepting the decisions of the Council, following the new liturgy and submitting to the new Code of Canon law.

If this be so, we have two churches who have the same heads and most of the same members, but who have different forms and ends diametrically incongruous: on the one hand eternal salvation seconded by the social reign of Christ, King of Nations, on the other hand the unity of the human race by liberal ecumenism, that is to say broadened to all religions, the heir of the conciliar decisions of Unitatis Redintegratio, Nostra Aetate, and Dignitatis Humanae, and which is the spirit of Assisi and the antithesis of the social reign of Christ the King.

The Bishop proceeded to expand and defend this thesis in greater detail.

My treatment of the topic has been focused on what the Conciliar/Synodal Church is not, and the Bishop’s treatment provides some possibly valuable insights into what the Conciliar Church is – although these would appear to be less certain than the thesis defended in this article.

That said, I strongly disagree some of the points he raises above, in particular the notion of a legitimate Pope being the head of both the Catholic Church and, given its qualities, a distinct body such as the Conciliar/Synodal Church. To my mind, Archbishop Lefebvre’s account of the matter was more accurate, and its implications adequately accounted for by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais:

“Insofar as the Pope, bishops, priests, and faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.”

While he acknowledges this statement, and the importance of its conditional nature he arbitrarily adds: “And of this measure we are not the judges.” In many cases, this is correct; but in many other cases, the “measure” of this adherence is painfully clear, and by no means a matter of judging internal states.

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!

Subscribe now

Donate

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

Read Next:

Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• The Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram

Response to some recent criticisms

As the conclusion of Zero Marks (and some other pieces) attracted some criticism, I have decided to reply to a few recent comments or objections here.

Before we start, let me be clear. At The WM Review, one editor does not necessarily speak for the other. We are dealing with difficult and disputed topics, which admit different possible explanations.

Neither of us have any authority to impose our ideas on each other, or on anyone else. What we do is explain what seems to make the most sense to us (whether as individuals or as a collective). Our answers are not always going to satisfy everyone, and that is just how things are.

1. ‘I am disappointed’

In a subsequently deleted tweet, a regular critic expressed disappointment at a recent article we published.

But as it amuses my esteemed father to remind the family: “Life is full of disappointments.”

It is a great mistake to make the disappointment of others the basis of making decisions.

Indeed, with regard to this regular critic, I have long since learned to live with his disappointment.

Dealing with the particulars of his complaint, however:

• He pointed out a passage in which the caveat “allegedly” could indeed have been usefully employed – and it has been retrofitted to the article.

• He was mistaken in describing the article as “anonymous”, as it was pseudonymous – with the author’s Substack profile linked in the byline.

• He was mistaken in saying that the given claim was unreferenced; it was in a footnote.

• The article included another footnote which made the specific point which was supposedly omitted (e.g., the role of the legitimate electors in responding to an hypothetical divine intervention designating a pope).

• The majority of his long, hectoring message was about a comment from the author in the combox.

As mentioned, the tweet in which these criticisms were raised has since been deleted.

2. “They would not tell us clearly their opinion”

On the same day, the person mentioned in n. 1 alleges that I and/or “The WM Review” refuse to state our positions on various topics (cf. the comment above about “positions of The WM Review”).

This is not the case at all.

What I have declined to do is reply to rude and hectoring emails and tweets – and I shall indeed always so decline.

Subscribe now

3. “Where is the Church?”

I recently appeared on Integrity Magazine’s podcast to discuss the conclusion of Zero Marks with , as well as the question of whether or not Vatican II inaugurated a new religion.

The original headline assigned to this video, after recording, was something like “Where is the Church.”

I did not select this title. There were two questions related to this subject at the end of this eighty minute show. Due to time constraints, I gave a quick response, and suggested we prorogue the topic for a future date.

The title has since been changed to the more representative title of “The Vatican II Religion: Stephen Kokx And S.D. Wright On The 4 Marks Of The Conciliar Church.”

As to the question itself – Where is the Church? – I have dealt with it on a number of occasions in the past (see below).

• Where is the Church today? Archbishop Lefebvre and the Conciliar Church

• The Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Catholic Church—it lacks the necessary marks

• The duty for laymen to study and spread the faith—Pope Leo XIII

• The status of the Church’s hierarchy today

Some people object to being referred to articles, and demand a one-sentence reply instead.

But sometimes, brevity is simply not possible; and sometimes, brevity can, without the wider context, cause more harm or confusion than good. Sometimes, again, the explanation will fall on deaf ears, because one’s interlocutor vehemently disagrees about the question which gives rise to the answer – and in such circumstances, an explanation is not a good use of time or energy.

If people do not like this, or if they consider it as “gnostic and patronizing”, then there is not much I can do about that. I am sorry that they feel that way.

The question Where is the Church? keeps getting asked, I believe, because the questioners are not satisfied with the answer. Perhaps they are “disappointed” that it is not dramatic or extravagant (like, for example, the claim that “Only sedevacantists are the Church”).

Nonetheless, I will offer again my answer.

The Catholic Church is the congregation of the faithful. Both components in that definition – faith, and being congregated – are essential. They correspond to the external profession of faith, and communion. She is the society of baptised men, who profess the faith externally, are subject to legitimate pastors, and are not separated from the body (whether through heresy, schism, apostasy, or a full excommunication). This society will manifest, even in a state of obscuration, the four marks of the Church.

These marks, and the properties which they manifest, are absent in the Conciliar/Synodal Church. The structures of the Catholic Church are being materially occupied and used by men who are not Catholics, and are promoting the new religion.

In Zero Marks, I have exhaustively explained how and to what extent these marks may be obscured, whilst remaining present. In the April 2024 article below, I also explained how they continue to be manifest today:

• The Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Catholic Church—it lacks the necessary marks

As a concession to those who do not wish to read the full articles, I will provide the following from this article:

“[T]his living Church remains precisely where she always was, albeit obscured by those who have left her.

“She remains, as Pius XII taught, the body of men ‘who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.’

“At least in the Western world, this body of men is the body of traditionalists, along with some of the conservatives here and there who remain materially entangled with the Novus Ordo structure.

“This body of men exhibits the property of unity: even if they are materially divided in ways similar to the Great Western Schism, they remain visibly united in their profession of the Catholic faith, notwithstanding differences over confusing matters, or doctrinal matters which are not ‘of faith’.

“This body of men exhibits the property of holiness, in the ‘causative sanctity’ of the sacraments, doctrine and discipline, which are vigorously used. It also typically exhibits at least the ordinary personal sanctity through these means, and through the continuation and serious use of the institutes of perfection.

“This body of men exhibits the property of catholicity, in that they are diffused throughout the entire world (as any directory of Traditional Masses may indicate) and are typically very clear that the Church is for all men.

“This body of men exhibits the property of apostolicity, in that history and the other marks show that it is apostolic in origin and doctrine. While apostolicity in succession is harder to demonstrate, this body of men contains absolutely no intruders into the apostolic succession, as traditional bishops agree that they are ‘merely sacramental bishops’, or bishops in an auxiliary sense. Similarly, by virtue of being Catholics, they remain united yo and in communion with whatever true successors of the apostles remain in the world [even if “materially divided” from them, as already mentioned], as well as with any and all other Catholics elsewhere.

“It is indeed difficult to see what, if anything, is left of the Latin-rite successors of the apostles after so many have disappeared into heresy and a false religion, as have several Eastern-rite claimants. But this is quite distinct from positing a universal negative, and saying that the entirety of the Church’s hierarchy has utterly disappeared.

“In short, the location of the Roman Catholic Church is somewhat harder to verify than it was a century ago; but this is the very nature of an obscuration or eclipse.

“As such, the Roman Catholic Church continues to exist, visibly, with these necessary properties intact. In spite of any problems and obscurity, there is no need or reason to conclude that the Conciliar/Synodal Church is the Roman Catholic Church.”

It is difficult to say exactly where the exact boundaries of this society are today, due to a) the almost universal absence of legitimate authority, and b) the interposition of illegitimate authority and non-Catholics which obscure the Church. But as Fr Victor White OP wrote:

“There is something wrong with the facile assumption that the distinction of Catholics from non-Catholics, of members of the Church from non-members of the Church, is always a manifest one. Certainly there are those who clearly are such, and those who pretty clearly are not. […]

“Certainly the Church is visible, and visible by reason of the visibility of her members and her organisation. But the edges are very blurred.”1

And as Billot wrote:

“This visibility also deals with the whole group considered all together, and not each person taken singly […] For this visibility certainly does not require that there be no doubt about anyone at all about whether he be a member of the Church or not, but it is sufficient that there be certitude about most of them; and I mean that certitude which is moral certitude, and sufficient in practice among men.”2

Some people find these answers inadequate, too simple, or not leading to something immediately actionable. The problem seems not to be that they disagree with the answer, but that they disagree that we have given an answer. I have the impression that our opponents consider this matter to be a very significant problem for the “sedevacantist” position, and that they object that it cannot be a significant problem due to Our Lord’s promises. When I respond by agreeing that it is not a significant problem and provide an answer, they allege that I have not answered it properly.

What can one say? “Life is full of disappointments.”

Let me explain a little further. It is possible for both the visible head of this society (the Roman Pontiff) and the local head of one’s diocese (the residential bishop) to be absent at the same time. When this occurs, those who would be subjects of these authorities remain “subject to legitimate pastors” in the sense relevant for membership of the Church – through their adhesion to the vacant sees of Rome and their diocese. They remain subject to all the Church’s laws. They also remain in union with – although not subject to, for obvious reasons – all other Catholics and all other members of the hierarchy.

There is nothing to prevent this happening on a wide scale, and for a long time. This, broadly, is what I hold to be the case today. As a result, the majority of the Church is left to “fend for itself” without legitimate pastors – although I believe that there must continue to be at least a few residential bishops who are governing their flocks in a legitimate way.

Where are these bishops? They may be hidden to us (e.g., in a part of the world, or oriental rite, of which we have no personal knowledge) or they may “visible” to us, but difficult for us to discern amidst a collection of usurpers.3

I have explained this matter – in what sense we remain members of the society and in communion with those legitimate pastors who remain – here:

• How do you tell the true Church after a rupture? Journet’s answer

• ‘Zero Marks’ – Why the Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Catholic Church (fn. 92)

• The status of the Church’s hierarchy today

But, as Fr MacLaughlin wrote:

“We concede, moreover, that there may have been occasions in the past (and such intervals may occur in the future) when, through the opposition of anti-Popes and a variety of untoward circumstances, it was difficult for individuals for the moment to tell where the right source of authoritative teaching was to be found.

“This, however, does not change the state of the case in the least; the one true Church was in the world somewhere all the same, and in full possession of all her essential prerogatives, although, for the passing hour — from transient causes — she may not have been easily discernible to the less observant.

“Just as there have been times when some dense fog or mist made it impossible for the ordinary observer to tell the exact spot the sun occupied in the sky, although everybody knew that he was there somewhere; knew, too, that he would in due course make the exact location of his presence visible to all, and that, as soon as the mist lifted, his rays would come straight to the earth again, and every one would see that he was identically the same luminous orb that had shone before.”4

4. Is there a problem?

I have been asked whether I see a problem with asserting that there must continue to be formal successors of the Apostles, despite being unable to identify even a single one?

No, I don’t.

In Radically Sufficient, I wrote the following:

No one can deny that, even if they were indeed limited to “traditionalists”, the Church’s members have remained very visible ever since Vatican II. As mentioned above, our difficulty is an extreme obscuration of the hierarchy, caused principally by the current vacancy of the Holy See, which makes it difficult to tell who, if any, of the known hierarchy is Catholic. However, my working assumption has long been the same as Fr Crean’s: the Church must always retain formal successors of the Apostles, regardless of the state of the Holy See. But if this is the case, then she does so. Those men will remain visible in the sense explained by Salaverri above: they are materially visible as men, and they will be formally and distinctly visible as hierarchs of the Catholic Church to those whom they govern.

This is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Church’s perpetual visibility, as set out by the theologians. We subjectively do not know who these men are, but we are not the whole Church, and there is absolutely no necessity that such men be visible to us in order to be visible in themselves and to the Church, viz. those whom they govern. These men may or may not be parts of the hierarchy of the Conciliar/Synodal Church, and simply difficult to verify (people typically point to the East, in which the changes of Vatican II had a considerably lesser effect), or they may wholly unknown to us.

In other words, to use Salaverri’s terminology, from our vantage point, the Church remains materially visible to all, through the existence of Catholics adhering to the traditional faith, that she remains formally visible, in an inadequate (i.e., “not all, but only some of its elements are visible” – and what is currently and temporarily not visible is the hierarchy) and broad way (i.e., discernible to the senses); and she remains distinctly visible as the true Church of Christ, albeit in a way that requires more “moral diligence” and “diligent examination” than is usually the case.

The rejection of these points is typically based on the fundamental errors that a) the Church’s hierarchy cannot be obscured to a degree, which is certainly false; and b) that something can only exist or be visible if it is known to a large majority.

If the Church teaches something, it must be received as true. We believe it because the Church teaches it, and we do not need to verify it on intrinsic grounds in order to believe it. As Pope Pius IX taught:

“[L]et the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature […]”5

We also recall the words of Our Lord to St Thomas:

“Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen and have believed.” (John 20.29)

Update: this topic is addressed in greater detail here:

• ‘Spotless and Unsullied’ – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy

Subscribe now

5. Where to be received?

The question has been asked:

“Where should someone go to be received into the Catholic Church today? The SSPX? The CMRI? The RCI?”

Where I think someone should go is an irrelevant question. Much more relevant is where they could go.

All things being equal, I would assume that anyone baptised in one of the above groups becomes a Catholic (and, contrary to what some claim, all infants validly baptised in sects are Catholics until such age as they are construed to adhere to their sect6).

I would happily extend this to the FSSP and other groups, and even – again, all things being equal7 – to someone who is validly baptised in a standard diocesan parish.

The reasons for this should be clear from what is above.

The same applies to a convert who has already been baptised, for reasons to be addressed in the next question.

6. Censures

The following question has been asked:

“What about someone who has cut himself off from the Church by heresy, schism, or apostasy? Who currently has the authority to lift the censure and receive such a person back into the Church?”

Someone who has cut himself off from the Church by heresy, schism or apostasy is a non-Catholic because he has broken the external bond of faith and/or charity – not because of the censures that are imposed as a result of those acts. They may receive an extra “title” to their non-membership through an excommunication – if the authority intervenes in a particular way.

The theologian Fr Emil Dorsch SJ writes:

“A juridical fact may be derived from many sources; and thus in this case the sentence of excommunication adds a new title of separation. This is evident when such heretics return to the Church; for then it is not sufficient that they return to the faith and renounce heresy, but absolution from the censure is a distinct requirement; and even when the censure has been absolved, [the manifest heretic] is to be received into the Church by a separate act.

“Nor is it useless that the Church, by such a sentence, adds to the separation already accomplished by heresy itself; for excommunication also has its own effects (e.g. deprivation of public suffrages) and helps to deter the faithful, who are prevented from establishing civil relations with [excommunicates].”8

The censures relevant to the average convert are latae sententiae, and they generally have not been formalised with any kind of decree. This is relevant because theologians discuss which type of censures actually put a person outside the Church, as opposed to outside the goods of the Church. Here is what Billot writes:

“[T]he excommunication of vitandi9 [those to be avoided] is a perfect and consummated excommunication, and for this reason they are quite simply outside the Church, no differently than are heretics and schismatics, though by a different means.”10 (Emphasis added)

Here is what Salaverri writes:

“1049. An excommunication is a censure or penalty whereby a delinquent or obstinate person is excluded from the communion of the faithful, until after abandoning his contumacy he is absolved. That can be called formal which affects a man who is really delinquent and obstinate. But that can be said to be merely material, which concerns a subject who through invincible error is thought to be delinquent and obstinate when in reality he is not such. It can be total or partial according as the excommunicated person is excluded from communion with the faithful in all or only in some of the good which fall under the jurisdiction of the Church. But the internal supernatural goods, such as sanctifying grace and the infused virtues, are not taken away by the censure itself. An excommunicated person is one who must be avoided (vitandus) who by name has been excluded from the communion of the faithful by the Apostolic See, and either by the law itself or by a public decree or sentence by name has been denounced as someone who must be avoided.

“We call that excommunication perfect whereby the Apostolic See properly intends to separate a delinquent and obstinate person from the body of the Church. Therefore, besides the privation of spiritual goods which fall under the jurisdiction of the Church, a perfect excommunication implies, as its own special nature, this manifest intention of separating someone from the body of the Church. But because the dominant intention of the Church is ‘to impose an excommunication for healing and not for ruin,’ therefore, if by his contrition the excommunicated person recovers grace and charity, by that fact his excommunication ceases to be perfect, even though juridically he really remains an excommunicated person to be avoided, and he cannot licitly participate in the communion of the faithful until he is absolved. […]

“1054. 3) That those who have been excommunicated from the Church by a perfect excommunication are not members of the body of the Church is an opinion common among Catholics.

“a) That the Church wishes indeed to punish by excommunication delinquent members, but de facto does not intend to separate the excommunicated from the body of the Church, although she says that they are to be avoided, is held by D’Herbigny, Dieckmann, Spacil, Sauras, with Banez, Valentia, Suarez and Guamieri.

“b) That those excommunicated with a partial excommunication are members of the Church is a common opinion among Theologians, who also generally hold that merely material and occult heretics and schismatics are members of the body of the Church.

“1055. State of the question. We are considering the Church in the strict sense, that is, the Church which and inasmuch as she was instituted by Christ, and concerning those who not merely putatively, nor only in desire, but in reality have been constituted members of the Church through Baptism. We divide the thesis into two parts. In the first part we say: heretics, apostates and schismatics, who are formal and manifest, by that very fact are separated from the Church. In the second part we hold: those persons excommunicated with a total, formal and perfect excommunication, that is, for this purpose legitimately imposed, are also separated from the body of the Church.”11

To restate the point above: the average convert is not a vitandus under a perfect excommunication. (We can leave possible rare exceptions to one side for now, as that was not the question.) As such, these censures are not a title by which they are outside the Church.

The question as to who can lift the relevant censures is an interesting one. But in order to understand how it relates to the question at hand, we need to return to the basics of membership of the Church.

Baptism constitutes a person as a member of the Church – provided that he does not posit any obstacle to this effect. One such obstacle, for example, is the manifest profession of heresy.

If heresy is put away, and the person returns to the profession of faith, this obstacle is removed – and it thus ceases to prevent the effect of baptism from constituting him as a member of the Church.

The ordinary way that this is achieved, at least in many cases, is through an abjuration of heresy and profession of faith to a priest – and indeed, the lifting of censures (which we have already noted were not a title by which they were not members of the Church). But all this is a provision of positive law, and is simply managing what is “in the nature of things” – namely, the necessity of a public and external profession of faith.

As such, given that in our current situation…

• The censures on those converting are not the title by which they were outside the Church;

• The actual titles for non-membership this are removed; and

• The requirements for the lifting of these censures pertain to positive law…

… it would seem to me that a generalised inability to observe the letter of the law regarding abjurations, absolutions and professions render this a non-problem. The actual putting aside of heresy and the actual profession of faith (manifested both by words, and by a person living an ordinary life of practising the faith) are sufficient. This is especially so, given that censures are lifted in confession12 – and, as the 1917 Code states:

“Can. 2251: If absolution of a censure is given in the external forum, it applies in the other forum; if [it is given] in the internal [forum], the one absolved, avoiding scandal, may conduct himself in this way, even for actions of the external forum; but, unless the grant of absolution can be proved or at least legitimately presumed in the external forum, a Superior of the external forum to whom the defendant owed compliance can enforce the censure until absolution in that forum can be had.”

7. Dodging questions of formal succession?

We have been told that “sedes” dodge or never fully explain the question of formal apostolicity.

This is not true. It is a central issue, and all the various “sedevacantist positions” offer an attempt to account for it.

If someone doesn’t find any of these attempts convincing, that is a separate matter.

I also addressed the charge directly a few weeks ago.

• Have we ignored apostolicity of government/succession and over-focused on that of doctrine?

8. Responding to a recent interview

We have been told that “sedevacantists” should be responding to a recent interview “attacking sedevacantism”, and it is a missed opportunity not to do so.

On the contrary, what seems to have been intended as an interview about the alleged errors of “sedevacantists” visibly turned into an interview about the SSPX and trads in general (as was entirely predictable, given the guests).

As such, I do not understand why it is “our” responsibility to respond. Let the public defenders of SSPX positions reply, if they consider it so urgent.

One must be judicious with how one spends one’s time, and refuse to be invited down rabbit holes, or to respond to minutiae at the expense of the wider issue.

Once again, some may find this disappointing: “Life is full of disappointments.”

Personally, I consider tasks such as completing my reply to the good Fr Thomas Crean OP a more pressing engagement, and a more fruitful use of my time.

9. You need better answers and need to directly respond to these questions.

I am sorry some are disappointed by our answers.

We do respond directly to questions, but not always directly to every individual who asks them – even if others think that this or that individual is significant enough to merit that.

Once again: “Life is full of disappointments.”

Conclusion

All in all, although some were interesting, I consider most of these objections to be very disappointing.

But: “Life is full of disappointments.”

Subscribe now

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!

Subscribe now

Donate

Lovely Mugs

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

Read Next:

Follow us elsewhere:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• The Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram

(WM Round-Up) – On Wednesday 20 May 2026 – I appeared on Integrity Magazine’s podcast with to conclude our discussion of my long article ‘Zero Marks’ – Why the Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Catholic Church.

Integrity Magazine is Stephen Kokx’s new venture. It describes itself as follows:

Integrity was launched in response to the growing need to expose error and defend the truth for the honor of God following the 2025 conclave.

We draw our inspiration primarily from the great anti-liberal and anti-modernist laity and clergy from the past five centuries.

Integrity serves as the world’s premier online resource for Counter-Revolutionary Roman Catholic thinking for the 21st century. Our aim is the complete restoration of both the civil and ecclesial orders under the Kingship of Christ, while rejecting any and all compromising efforts.

You can read more about it here. I also appeared on the video launch, along with several other guests, and discussed a bit about The WM Review, my background and interests:

The conversation in the final part of the Zero Marks series began with the question of whether a new religion emerged from Vatican II. Certain social media influencers have recently asserted that only “sedevacantists” make such a claim.

Our discussion was drawn from an article I wrote after the May 2025 conclave:

• What Leo XIV’s ‘complete commitment’ to Vatican II REALLY means

In fact, while Marshall and others implausibly claim that the idea of a “new religion” is a “sedevacantist” claim, Archishop Marcel Lefebvre said the said the same thing himself, and it was the central thesis of Fr Alvaro Calderon SSPX’s book Prometheus.

I made some points on Twitter about what this claim, coming from these persons, indicates:

After the initial discussion of the question of a new religion, we summarised the chapters of Zero Marks, which deal with each of the four marks of the Church – and drew our discussion to a close.

We will be releasing the conclusion of Zero Marks for all readers on Friday. But you can read it NOW in the full book-length article discussed here:

‘Zero Marks’ – Why the Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Catholic Church (Reply to Fr Thomas Crean)

Subscribe now

Articles mentioned:

• What Leo XIV’s ‘complete commitment’ to Vatican II REALLY means

• How do you tell the true Church after a rupture? Journet’s answer

• Have we ignored apostolicity of government/succession and over-focused on that of doctrine?

• The status of the Church’s hierarchy today

Other parts in the Zero Marks series:

• ‘Radically insufficient’ – Reply to Fr Crean on the Church’s visibility, Part I

• ‘Zero Marks’ – Why the Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Catholic Church (Reply to Fr Thomas Crean) (All chapters and conclusion)

  • Chapter I: Disunited in Faith: Why the Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church

  • Chapter II: ‘Comprehensive Rejection’: Is the Conciliar/Synodal Church visibly holy?

  • Chapter III: Is the Conciliar/Synodal Church Catholic?

  • Chapter IV: Apostolic succession in the Conciliar/Synodal Church?

  • Chapter V: Ruptures with apostolic doctrine and origin shows the Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Catholic Church

This interview was a follow up to a previous conversation on the first part, ‘Radically insufficient’ – Reply to Fr Crean on the Church’s visibility, Part I’. Here is the first interview, on Part I:

Here is the second, on the property of unity (Part II, Ch. 1):

Here is the third, on the property of holiness (Part II, Ch. II):

Here is the fourth, on the property of catholicity (Part II, Ch. III):

Here is the fifth, on the note of apostolicity (Part II, Ch. IV):

Here is the sixth, on the property of apostolicity (Part II, Ch. V):

Thank you to Stephen for having me on again. I hope readers of The WM Review enjoy it – and give a follow too.

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!

Subscribe now

Donate

Lovely Mugs

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• The Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram

Editor’s Notes

On 19 May, 1651, Bl. Peter Wright SJ achieved the palm of martyrdom in London, England. The following account of his life is taken from Bishop Richard Challoner’s Memoirs of the Missionary Priests.

Bishop Challoner was the Vicar Apostolic of the London District during the eighteenth century, and most famous today for his revision of the Douay-Rheims version of the Holy Scriptures, which are still used by Catholics today. He was also responsible for many important works, including The Garden of the Soul, Meditations for Every Day of the Year, and catechisms, as well as translations of The Imitation of Christ and St Augustine’s Confessions.

There is a significant detail to the martyrdom that Bishop Challoner does not make explicit. While he notes that Bl. Peter expired whilst hanging, he does explain that this was permitted – in place of being cut down and disembowelled whilst alive – due to the respect and admiration felt by so many for the martyr. This is further shown by the permission for his friends to bury his body with dignity – rather than his body parts being displayed at the gates of the city. J.R. Betts also notes:

“The Sheriff of London then demanded, in a loud voice, but with evident humanity, if any relations or friends of ‘the noble gentleman’ were present. Great numbers came forward and were allowed to take away all the sacred relics for honorable burial.”

Betts also mentions that Bl. Peter was not mocked on his way to execution, and that even the press praised his courage.

Challoner also does not mention that Bl. Peter actually said to the Anglican minister, who had tried to have him recant his faith: “Get thee behind me Satan.”

Bl. Peter was beatified by Pope Pius XI on 15 December 1929.

Unfortunately, I have no evidence of being related to Bl. Peter Wright – but I am happy to invoke him as a patron of my family.

S.D.Wr.

Subscribe now

Peter Wright, Priest, S.J.

By Bishop Richard Challoner

From Memoirs of the Martyrs, Memoirs of missionary priests, as well secular as regular, and of other Catholics of both sexes, that have suffered death in England on religious accounts from the year of Our Lord 1577–16841

His early life

PETER WRIGHT was born of poor but virtuous parents at Slipton in Northamptonshire. His father dying when he was very young, the circumstances of his mother, left with a great family of children, obliged him to seek his bread in service.

He had for his master a country lawyer with whom he lived several years; and being young, and amongst Protestants, quickly forgot the pious admonitions of his dying parent, and lost his religion.

However he was by degrees reclaimed after he came to man’s estate; and going abroad, was fully reconciled by the English fathers of the Society [of Jesus] in their College in Liege, to which Providence had brought him whilst he was designing a pilgrimage to Rome.

From Liege he was sent to Ghent recommended by Father Rector to the English Catholics there, and for two years diligently applied himself to his humanity studies in the College of the Flemish Jesuits; till in the year 1629 he was pitched upon by the English fathers, to be one of the number who were to be sent that year from St. Omers to the Seminary of Rome.

But Mr. Wright petitioned that he might rather be admitted into the Society; and was accordingly received to the noviceship at Watten; where, in the two years of his stay, he gained that perfect mastery over his passions, that whereas by nature he was hasty and passionate, from that time he was remarkably calm and sedate.

It was also noted that he took great pleasure, as well here at Watten as afterwards during the course of his studies at Liege, in making excursions into the neighbouring villages, and catechising the children.

From Prefect of Novices to Military Chaplain

Having finished his divinity studies, and his third year’s noviceship in the Tertian House at Ghent, he was made prefect over the scholars in the College of St. Omers; though nothing could suit less with his inclinations than this troublesome office, as he himself acknowledged.

But he made a sacrifice of his own will to the will of God notified to him by his superiors; and that he might the more perfectly overcome this repugnancy of nature, after having prostrated himself to God in prayer, he went to the rector of the College, and generously offered to continue prefect, if the superiors thought proper, during the whole remainder of his life.

But not long after, his provincial destined him to an employment, not less laborious indeed, but much more agreeable to his zeal, viz., to a mission amongst the English soldiers; where he behaved in such manner as to gain the esteem and affection of all, and to reclaim great numbers of them from their errors and vices.

He was particularly dear to Sir Henry Gage their Colonel, who after their first acquaintance would not part with him, but had him for an inseparable companion for seven years, partly in Flanders, and partly in England; till Sir Henry (who was governor of Oxford for the King) being killed in the civil wars in 1644, the Marquis of Winchester and his lady desired to have Father Wright in their family, with whom he lived till his apprehension, which was on Candlemas Day, 1650–1.

His arrest

As the privileges of the peers were not regarded in those times of confusion, the priest-catchers watched their opportunity of rushing into the Marquis’s house on Candlemas Day in the morning, at the very time that Father Wright was going to Mass, and had not the Marquis stopped them for a while upon the stairs, they would have seized the good man in the chapel, if not at the altar itself.

But this delay gave him an opportunity of getting out of the window upon the leads; where, nevertheless, he could not be long concealed; for the pursuivants finding, upon their coming into the oratory, the altar dressed, and all things ready laid out for Mass, concluded the priest could not be far off; and perceiving the window open, imagined he had gone out that way, and found it to be so by sending a boy the same way, who discovered the father upon the leads.

Thus he fell into their hands, and was carried before the Lord Chief Justice Roules, and by him committed to Newgate as a suspected priest, where he had for companions, besides two priests that lay under sentence of death, five others lately apprehended upon the same suspicion; and amongst them the Rev. Mr. Cheney, a priest of the secular clergy, who was his bedfellow, and has given an edifying account of Father Wright’s behaviour in prison, extant in his printed life.

Subscribe now

Fr Wright’s trial

In the first sessions after the apprehension of our confessor he was not called to the bar; and two of his companions who were tried, viz., Mr. Baker and Mr. Cheney, were brought in not guilty by their jury, which gave the Catholics great hopes that Father Wright would be set at liberty, without being brought to his trial; and very industrious they were to procure his discharge.

But when the following sessions were coming on, they began to apprehend that those who were in power had other designs; for it was then given out that the Lord Chief Justice had sent into the country for the apostate Thomas Gage, to come up and appear as witness against Father Wright, and Father Dade, superior of the English Dominicans, at that time also prisoner in Newgate.

To divert this blow, the Rev. Mr. George Gage, an eminent clergyman, used his best endeavours to prevail on the apostate, who was his brother, not to involve himself in any further guilt by having a hand in the blood of the innocent. He promised he would not, and, as to Father Dade, was as good as his word; for though he appeared in court against him, and testified that he knew him to be superior of the Dominicans, yet he qualified this testimony by adding that though he was their superior, possibly he might be no priest, as St. Francis was superior of his order, and yet was no priest; upon which Father Dade was acquitted by the jury.

But as to Father Wright, the wretch notoriously broke his promise, and swore that he knew him to be a priest and a Jesuit, and had often seen him say Mass; alleging for the reason of his appearing against him, an old grudge that he had against the father, for having done him an ill office, as he pretended, with his elder brother, Sir Henry Gage.

Fr Wright’s reply

The good man being asked by the Lord Chief Justice what he had to reply to this testimony, and those of the other witnesses, Mayo, Wadsworth, &c., would make no other answer than this:

‘My Lord, I give Almighty God thanks, from the bottom of my heart that He has been pleased I should be here arraigned (to use the words of St. Peter), not as a murderer, nor as a thief, nor as a reviler, nor as guilty of any other crime but my religion; even the Catholic religion, which was, is, and ever will be illustrious over all the earth; and I have nothing more to say.’

The judge told him it was not for religion he was arraigned, but for returning into England after having received the order of priesthood, and seducing the people.

Father Wright replied that the persecutors of old might, with as good a grace, have objected to the apostles and the primitive priests, their coming into heathen countries and preaching the faith, contrary to the laws of those countries, and have called it treason, and seducing the people.

‘But they preached the Gospel,’ said the judge, ‘you preach errors contrary to the Gospel.’

‘That is the very point in question,’ said Father Wright, adding at the same time that all manner of errors and heresies were tolerated in England, and none persecuted but the Catholic religion, which was a sign of its being God’s truth.

The guilty verdict

The jury going out to consult about their verdict, after some deliberation, returned him guilty; upon which the confessor made a low reverence with a serene and cheerful countenance, and said aloud, ‘God Almighty’s holy name be blessed now, and for evermore.’

The next day, being Whitsun-eve, he received the sentence of death, to his own great comfort, but to the great affliction of his friends and penitents, who saw themselves now like to be deprived of so zealous and virtuous a pastor.

No endeavours were neglected to save his life, or at least to obtain a reprieve for him, by the means of the Spanish ambassador and others; but nothing could be obtained; the less, because it being the Whitsun holidays neither Council nor Parliament met.

In the meantime great was the concourse of Catholics of all ranks to the prison from morning till night to see the servant of God; many desired to make their confessions to him; others begged some little thing which they might keep in memory of him; all were edified with his words and comportment, and departed with his blessing, finding a certain spiritual joy in their souls from having seen and spoken with him.

As for his own part he prepared himself for his exit by a general confession of all his life to Mr. Cheney; and waited for death with so much unconcernedness, that, as the same gentleman took notice, the two last nights of his life he slept far more quietly than ordinary, and so sound that it was not without difficulty they awaked him at the appointed hour of five o’clock, when he arose the last morning to celebrate the sacred mysteries.

And he declared in confidence to a priest of the Society sent to him by the provincial, that he never in all his life had experienced so much joy as he then found in his soul at the approach of his dissolution.

Subscribe now

The day of the martyrdom

Whitsun-Monday in the morning he celebrated Mass with the assistance of Mr. Cheney, with great devotion.

And when the time was drawing near when he was to go down in order for execution, hearing the knocking at the iron grate, he took it as a summons from heaven, and cried out, ‘I come, sweet Jesus, I come.’ Then embracing Mr. Cheney, ‘Farewell,’ said he, ‘my chamber-fellow and bedfellow, before it is long we shall see one another again in heaven.’

When he was called out to the hurdle, he went with so much alacrity and speed that the officers could scarce keep pace with him; and here turning to Mr. Cheney, ‘Upon this bed, says he, I shall lie alone, as you also henceforward will have your bed to yourself.’

Then being placed on the hurdle he made a short act of contrition; and in the midst of mutual embraces was absolved by Mr. Cheney, and then drawn away to Tyburn through the streets crowded with an innumerable multitude of people.

My author writes that he himself was eye-witness of this last procession of Father Wright, who was drawn on the hurdle more like one sitting than lying down; his head was covered, his countenance smiling, a certain air of majesty, and a courage and cheerfulness in his comportment, which was both surprising and edifying, not only to the Catholics who crowded to ask his benediction, but to the Protestants themselves, as many of them publicly declared.

He adds that when the hurdle came over against the house where the Marquis of Winchester with his lady, children, and other Catholics of distinction were waiting to see him from a balcony, he lifted himself up as much as his pinions would permit, and making the sign of the cross gave them his last blessing, which they all received with their heads bowed down.

The crowd at Tyburn

The number of people that met at Tyburn, to be spectators of the triumph of this confessor of Christ, was computed to have been no less than 20,000, and amongst them near 200 coaches and 500 horsemen.

Thirteen malefactors were appointed to die with him, to whom the father endeavoured to give seasonable advice for the welfare of their souls, but was continually interrupted by the minister, and therefore desisted, betaking himself to silent prayer, in which he employed about an hour, standing with his eyes shut, his hands joined before his breast, his countenance sweet and amiable, and his whole body without motion as one in deep contemplation.

The minister took occasion to tell him it was not yet too late, that he might save his life, if he would renounce the errors of Popery; but Father Wright generously answered him, If he had a thousand lives he would most willingly give them all up in defence of the Catholic religion.

His final address

The hangman having fitted the rope to his neck, the confessor made a short speech to the spectators, in these or the like words:—

‘Gentlemen, this is a short passage to eternity; my time is now short, and I have not much to speak.

‘I was brought hither charged with no other crime but being a priest. I willingly confess I am a priest; I confess I am a Catholic; I confess I am a religious man of the Society of Jesus, or as you call it, a Jesuit.

‘This is the cause for which I die; for this alone was I condemned, and for propagating the Catholic faith, which is spread through the whole world, taught through all ages from Christ’s time, and will be taught for all ages to come.

‘For this cause I most willingly sacrifice my life, and would die a thousand times for the same, if it were necessary; and I look upon it my greatest happiness, that my most good God has chosen me most unworthy to this blessed lot, the lot of the saints.

‘This is a grace which so unworthy a sinner could scarce have wished, much less hoped for.

‘And now I beg of the goodness of my God with all the fervour I am able, and most humbly entreat Him that He would drive from you that are Protestants the darkness of error, and enlighten your minds with the rays of truth.

‘And as for you Catholics, my fellow soldiers and comrades, as many of you as are here, I earnestly beseech you to join in prayer for me and with me till my last moment; and when I shall come to heaven I will do as much for you.

‘God bless you all; I forgive all men. From my heart I bid you all farewell till we meet in a happy eternity.’

Permitted to die hanging as a mercy

Having spoken to this effect, he again recollected himself a while in prayer, and then the cart was drawn away, and he was suffered to hang till he quietly expired.

His dead body was cut down, headed, bowelled, and quartered. His friends were permitted to carry off his head and quarters, which were translated to Liege, and there honourably deposited in the college of the English Jesuits. He suffered the 19th of May, 1651, ætatis forty-eight, Societatis twenty-two.

As Father Wright’s comportment in this last stage of life was admired by the generality of the Protestants that were spectators of his death, so it gave occasion to several conversions, a thing very usual in the like occasions.

Subscribe now

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!

Subscribe now

Donate

Lovely Mugs

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

Read Next:

• Memoirs of the Missionary Priests – Bishop Challoner

• Blessed Peter Wright SJ – J.R. Betts

Follow us elsewhere:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• The Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram

Parallels between Our Lord’s Passion and the Passion of the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ

By Peregrinus

The Conspiracy Against Our Lord

Our Lord’s Passion
A secret conspiracy of the Jewish clergy against Our Lord Jesus Christ

Passion of the Church
A secret conspiracy of the Modernist clergy against the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ

Further Explanation
The faithless and corrupt Jewish clergy could not act openly against Christ because He had the support of the people, so they sought a traitor amongst His own disciples to try to destroy Him.

We know from The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita that, to destroy the Mystical Body of Christ, the Freemasons sought and worked for a generation of liberals imbued with revolutionary ideas, creating the Modernists – members of the Church and the clergy turned traitors and enemies within.

After Pope St. Pius X condemned Modernism in 1907 and put measures in place to thwart it, the Modernists changed their tactics from openly propagating their ideas to working in secret to advance to high positions from which they could act against the doctrines, liturgy and discipline of the Church.

The Agony of Our Lord

Our Lord’s Passion
The apostles are asleep, but Our Lord is perspiring blood in the Garden of Gethsemane, with His enemies closing.

Passion of the Church
In the 1950s in many places all seemed to be going well for the Church, but Pope Pius XII was suffering in seclusion, with his enemies close.

Further Explanation
In the peace of the Garden, the apostles fell asleep, and did not seem to appreciate the danger of Christ’s enemies closing, and His impending arrest, trial and execution, just as people in the Church’s growth and peace of the 1950s (excluding Communist countries) did not see the danger of the coming assault on the Papacy, and the religious, moral and societal disaster in the following decade.

As Christ went into seclusion in the Garden, Pope Pius XII decided to go more and more into seclusion in the 1950s and he suffered due to health issues (exacerbated by his physician), while some of those closest to him were later revealed to be Modernists, such as his Pro-Secretary Montini (later Paul VI), or his personal confessor, Card. Bea, later the author of Conciliar ecumenism.

The Betrayal of Our Lord

Our Lord’s Passion
One of the apostles betrayed Our Lord.

Passion of the Church
Some of the bishops (who are the successors of the apostles) betrayed the Church.

Further Explanation
Declassified US intelligence reports [Ed.: allegedly] say that there were irregularities at the 1958 Conclave: [Ed.: allegedly] Card. Siri was elected, but he was threatened by some of the Cardinals, and so he refused. (Apparently some of the Cardinals betrayed the Church [Ed., if so], because otherwise how would outsiders know of these things which are strictly secret under penalty of excommunication?) It is interesting that the person who exited the Conclave as pope, John XXIII, chose the exact name and number of a previous (anti)pope of disputed legitimacy.1

The Arrest of Our Lord

Our Lord’s Passion
The faithless Jews seize Our Lord and hit Him many times and mock Him.

Passion of the Church
The perverse Modernists seize the Church under John XXIII and start tearing her down and humiliating her.

Further Explanation
The liberal John XXIII laid the groundwork for the later acts of Montini, by changing the liturgy, including the Canon, removing the Last Gospel, the prayer to St. Michael and the rest of the Leonine prayers after Low Mass, removing various saints and important feasts from the Calendar, instituting false ecumenism, religious liberty, rapprochement with Communism, honoring representatives of false religions…

The Scattering of the Apostles

Our Lord’s Passion
The apostles and most of the disciples scatter; until the Resurrection, only St. John and a few women remain.

Passion of the Church
During the wicked Council only a small number of bishops fought the Modernists, and after the Council the number was reduced to just a few bishops, a few priests and a number of the laity.

Further Explanation
Only about 70–250 bishops (out of the attending 2,500–2,900) during the Council defended the Mystical Body of Christ from the assaults of the Modernists, and after the Council only Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer, Cardinal Ottaviani, Siri, and a few other bishops kept fighting against the destruction inflicted by the Modernists, along with priests like Fr. Sáenz y Arriaga, Fr. Guérard des Lauriers, Abbé de Nantes, and others.

The Denial of St. Peter

Our Lord’s Passion
When the Jews ask him in the court of the High Priest, Peter denies Our Lord three times.

Passion of the Church
Some say that Cardinal Siri was elected in three Conclaves (1958, 1963, and in the first Conclave of 1978), but that he refused every time because he was threatened by Freemasons among the Cardinals, or that the first time he accepted the election but when threatened, out of fear withdrew his acceptance (according to Canon Law, such a resignation would be invalid).

Further Explanation
Peter was not yet Pope when he thrice denied Our Lord. Our Lord promised him that he would be the Pope (“thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church”), but only after the Resurrection at Lake Tiberias did He give Peter the Papacy, when He told him: “Feed my sheep” etc. (First Vatican Council, Pastor Aeternus, ch. 1).2

Because of a lack of any incontrovertible evidence, even if Cardinal Siri was elected, which we cannot categorically claim, he could at most be considered a doubtful pope.

Our Lord Questioned by the High Priest

Our Lord’s Passion
Our Lord is taken to Annas, who was the High Priest several years ago and was the father-in-law of the High Priest Caiphas. Annas interrogates Him and his servant strikes Jesus, but Annas does not give any judgment, but sends Our Lord to Caiphas.

Passion of the Church
John XXIII starts the Council, immediately lets the orthodox preparatory schemas be rejected and lets the Modernists assume leadership in the committees, but dies before any errors are proclaimed.

Further Explanation
Just as Annas’ servant strikes Our Lord, John XXIII strikes the Mystical Body of Our Lord by rejecting the orthodox schemas and letting Modernists decide on what will be passed.

The wicked Council, called first by John XXIII and then by Paul VI, in which the Catholic doctrine was repudiated, is a parallel to the gathering called by Annas and then by Caiphas, in which Our Lord was repudiated.

The Council of Caiphas

Our Lord’s Passion
Caiphas calls a council of priests and rejects Our Lord’s doctrine, showing this first by rending his garments, by which he loses his authority and the chair of the High Priest is vacant. (See explanation).

Passion of the Church
At the Council, Paul VI rejects Catholic doctrine to replace it with Modernist errors and heresies. Before first promulgating heresy, he renounces the papal tiara, ring and pectoral cross with the design that they be sold – and thus shows that he lost his power and that the Papal See is vacant (for neither a true Pope nor a true ecumenical council, which only exists if there is a pope, could promulgate heresy).

Further Explanation
The great Doctor and Father of the Church, St. Jerome, comments:

“And by this rending his garments, he [Caiphas] shews that the Jews have lost the priestly glory, and that their High Priest’s throne was vacant. For by rending his garment he rent the veil of the Law which covered him [God had forbidden the High Priests to rend their clothes in Lev. 21:10].”3

Before renouncing God’s revealed Truth publicly with words, both Caiphas and Paul VI first renounce their authority with external gestures. The chronology:

• 13 November 1964 – Paul VI renounces the tiara and wants to sell it

• 21 November 1964 – First batch of heretical documents of Vatican II

• 4 October 1965 – Paul VI gives ring and pectoral cross to the UN to sell

• 28 October 1965 – Second batch of heretical documents of Vatican II

Subscribe now

Our Lord Before the Civil Power

Our Lord’s Passion
The Jewish priests take Our Lord to Pilate and ask that He be condemned for claiming to be King. Pilate questions Him about His Kingdom and sends Him to the Jewish ruler Herod. Neither wants to sentence Him to death.

St. Luke writes that the Jew Herod and the pagan Pilate, who were enemies until then, that day became friends.

Passion of the Church
After the Council, the Modernists demand of Catholic states to cease confessing the Faith and to recognize also the false religions – so, to reject the Catholic teaching that Jesus Christ is and must be King over every government and every society. Then formerly Catholic states become friends with the unbelieving world. However, even though the Modernists openly persecute the faithful, neither former Catholic states nor unbelieving states begin to do so.

Further Explanation
As the unbelieving Jews rejected the kingship of Jesus, the Messiah that generations of their ancestors prayed for and expected, the unbelieving Modernists rejected the rule of Christ as King, in a Catholic society that the ancestors of many of them worked to create and sustain.

The states that thus rejected the sweet yoke of Our Lord became friends with the fallen world that does not know Christ.

The Modernists instituted an open and still continuing persecution of Catholics faithful to the True Church, with condemnations of disobedience and schism, ejection out of churches, suspensions of clergy, excommunications. It is analogous to many persecutions endured by the faithful from the hands of heretics in the past, but without the shedding of blood. Yet the civil power has not taken part in that persecution, and has sometimes even helped faithful Catholics, such as in the famous case of the church of Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet in Paris.

The Scourging and Carrying of the Cross

Our Lord’s Passion
Christ is scourged and forced to carry the Cross to Mount Calvary.

Passion of the Church
After the Council, the Modernists abolish or drastically change most Church institutions, laws, sacraments etc. Many priests are heartbroken.

Further Explanation
Resembling the brazen acts of the Protestant rebellion, the destructive changes from 1964 to 1969 moved at a very fast pace, with a great fervor to destroy in that short time what had been built for millennia, and to reduce the Church’s glorious liturgy, doctrine and discipline to the debased level of the barren heretical sects, thus acting to effectively Protestantize the faith of the people and the clergy. There is nothing which parallels more these afflictions and humiliations of the Mystical Body than the scourging and many humiliations Our Lord endured in His Passion on Good Friday.

The Crucifixion

Our Lord’s Passion
Christ is crucified, He has mercy on the good thief, He dies on the Cross.

Passion of the Church
As the pinnacle of their destruction, the Modernists forbid the Catholic Mass of the Roman rite and introduce a counterfeit; they change the Words of Consecration, introduce sacrilegious communion in the hand, new tables of Luther with the priest turning his back to the Altar and the Blessed Sacrament. The faithful lose access to many graces and unquestionably valid Masses that confess the Catholic Faith. But just as with the good thief, even in such a time there are converts who accept the True Faith and are saved.

Further Explanation
That was the pinnacle of destruction because, just as with Christ’s death the thing most precious to His disciples was taken away from them - His sweet Presence – so too, in 1969, the Modernists took away that which was the most precious to the faithful – the True Mass, in which Christ is truly present and the faithful are nourished with His Most Holy Body and Blood, and with His heavenly doctrine.

The Burial of Christ

Our Lord’s Passion
Christ is placed in the sepulchre; the apostles are hiding from the Jews.

Passion of the Church
The Church appears as if in a sepulchre: most valid bishops have either defected or died, the rest are silent and hiding from the Modernists (and similarly with priests), most Catholics have defected, and those who have not are mostly in great ignorance about the Faith and often live like pagans; the True Faith and the True Mass are present in very few places…

Further Explanation
We are living the Good Friday (after Christ was placed in the sepulchre) and Holy Saturday of the Mystical Body of Christ. Though the Church cannot truly die, she has come as close as possible to death and interment. Most of her churches are empty or stages of desecrations and non-Catholic rites performed “upon the altar over against the altar of God” (super aram, quæ erat contra altare), a parallel to the desecration of the Temple by King Antiochus (1 Macc. 1:62).

With the false words of consecration used in Novus Ordo Masses, and with the doubtful validity of their ordinations, we wonder whether Our Lord is present there anymore. Those faithful to the True Mass and the True Church are not welcome there, and are forced to assemble mostly in previously secular places not intended for public worship, lamenting the loss of our churches and praying and hoping for a restoration.

The Resurrection

Our Lord’s Passion
Christ is risen in glory; the apostles gather and He appears to them, and after that He gives St. Peter the Papacy at Lake Tiberias.

Passion of the Church
A time of restoration, when a Pope will be elected either through the conversion of the current pretender, through a direct intervention from Heaven,4 or by all the bishops of the world who survive the devastation and persecutions mentioned in Catholic prophecies and, no longer afraid or deceived, provide the Church with the long-awaited Supreme Pontiff, who will restore the Church to an even greater glory than before.

Further Explanation
What can parallel the Resurrection of Christ after His Passion and interment but the Resurrection of His Mystical Body after its Passion and interment?

Subscribe now

Commentary on the Resurrection of the Church

Some Traditional Catholics would not perhaps agree with the last parallel, the Restoration of the Church, because some believe that it will not occur before the End of the world, or that it will only occur after the defeat of the Antichrist.

It is easy to answer those who say the last. We know from the teaching of the Fathers that the time between the death of the Antichrist and the Last Judgment will be very short, measured in days or weeks, not years – which is not enough time for the Glorious Restoration from Catholic prophecy.

While we cannot provide definitive answers, we can draw parallels and try to ask the right questions.

During Our Lord’s Passion, almost all the apostles and disciples fled and hid. They forgot or doubted what He told them beforehand about His Resurrection on the third day. It must have seemed so incredible to them that one whom they saw humiliated, tortured and killed could rise from the grave. The situation seemed so utterly hopeless. They thought Death had won. Our Lady, however, knew the prophecies from the Old Testament and she firmly believed what Our Lord said would happen. And it did.

We were also told beforehand that the Church would be attacked and brought very close to destruction (e.g. in the apparitions of Our Lady of Good Success, and in the conversation that we are told Pope Leo XIII heard between Our Lord and Satan), but also that she would be restored and triumph over all of her enemies. Most of the successors of the apostles, as well as most of the faithful, left the Church or hid, and are still hiding. It seems so hopeless for the restoration of the Church. Should we believe that Death will win against the Mystical Body?

One might object that the Church will be restored after the end of the world. If someone told the apostles hiding on Holy Saturday that Christ will rise from the dead at the end of the world, they would certainly have had no problem accepting that, because faithful Jews believed in the Resurrection of the Dead on the last day. But Our Lord did not wait for eternity for His victory. Why should His Mystical Body have to wait for eternity?

Looking with the eyes of the world, after the death and burial of Christ, who appeared more foolish: the one who thought that Jesus of Nazareth was dead and buried, and his sect destroyed without hope of being restored, or the one who believed that Jesus would rise from the grave, and that that defeated Jewish sect would convert the whole Roman world?

Certainly the latter would have been called completely crazy. After all, who can rise from the grave? How could some minuscule marginal sect conquer the mighty Roman Empire? But it did.

And today, who seems more foolish in the eyes of the world: the one who thinks that the pre-Conciliar Church is dead and buried, never to return again, and that Traditional Catholics are a minuscule marginal sect that will never be able to do anything to change the world, or the one who believes the prophecies that the pre-Conciliar Church will not just be restored but be even more glorious than ever before, that it will convert the world, defeat all heresies and paganism, and that everyone will be a Traditional Catholic?

Those of us who believe the latter must seem so foolish to the world. But is that something we should care about?

“Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? ... For the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

“... But the foolish things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the wise; and the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the strong. And the base things of the world, and the things that are contemptible, hath God chosen, and things that are not, that he might bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his sight.” (1 Cor. 1)

To reject the Restoration, one must reject many Catholic prophecies, including the apparitions of Our Lady of Good Success, the prophecies of Bl. Anna Maria Taigi (whose body is incorrupt), St. Francis of Paola (also found incorrupt), St. Hildegard, St. Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort, and many others. Would that not be excessive?

Could they have all made a mistake? Perhaps, but why should we think so without solid evidence to the contrary?

These questions seem especially important today, when many doubt the triumph of the Church, or despair at the length of her mystical Passion – thinking that perhaps with human means we might conquer, as if on Holy Saturday Our Lady or St. John might have tried to raise Christ themselves.

But He alone – the Alpha and the Omega, who laid down His life for us had the power to take it up again; and He alone who permitted His Mystical Body to undergo this painful Passion – has the power to give the Victory, through the intercession of Our Lady, to whom He has reserved the glory of destroying all heresies in the whole world.

May Her powerful intercession be with us all in these dark times, and may we all, regardless of the many views and opinions on the controversies of our times, keep always the bonds of unity in Christ as members of His Mystical Body.

Updated 20th May 2026 with three editor's interpolations marked as such and in square brackets and italics.

Subscribe now

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!

Subscribe now

Donate

Lovely Mugs

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

Read Next: from John Lane:

Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• The Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram