The status of the Church's hierarchy today

Some current thoughts on the question.

Apr 15, 2026

Image; Fr Lawrence Lew OP. As Amazon Associates, we earn from qualifying purchases through our Amazon links. See also The WM Review Reading List.

Some current thoughts on the question.

Introduction

The following are comments on my current state of mind with regard to the perpetuity of the hierarchy, in response to a number of requests for them. For reasons which will become clear, it is not intended as any kind of rigorous argument.

In April 2023, I published three articles on the Apostolicity of the Church, intended as preliminary material to another article by a writer named Pacelli, known from the Trad + Cath + Forum.

In these articles I set out what theologians had taught on who constitutes a “Successor of the Apostles” in a full sense (viz. residential bishops, or their equivalents); the nature of ordinary jurisdiction and ecclesiastical offices; and the source of ordinary jurisdiction. From this foundation, I intended to proceed to a further discussion of whether, and how, a person might accede to an ecclesiastical office – and thus assume the ordinary jurisdiction attached to it – in the absence of a true Pope.

Various factors prevented me from completing this series, setting out my ideas in a formal way, and publishing Pacelli’s articles – although I hope to do so at some point in the future.

In the interim, I published the aforementioned article by Mgr Joseph Clifford Fenton, along with some comments in note form setting out (a) how such an accession to office could take place during a vacancy of the Holy See; and (b) that this might occur in a manner so obscure and difficult that it would be impossible for many of us to verify.

How is the pope the source of jurisdiction? Mgr Fenton explains

This latter point has been the focus of my long article Zero Marks. Some of these articles have been accessible only to WM+ members – either permanently, due to their incomplete form, or temporarily, as in the case of Zero Marks. (WM+ material is always available to clergy, religious or seminarians who request the complimentary access which we offer.)

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

These earlier articles have been criticised due to the absence of the resolution which their conclusion would provide. I do not accept this as a legitimate criticism. The doctrinal points expressed in those articles are, as far as I can see, true. They stand independently of any practical difficulties they may raise, or of any attempted resolutions that might be offered. The establishment of theological principles does not depend upon the immediate ability to resolve every contingent problem to which they give rise: if nothing else, they serve as a bulwark against the acceptance of false solutions.

The present article is not intended as a rigorous or definitive theological demonstration. Rather, it is a brief and less formal statement of my current state of mind on these questions, offered in response to a number of requests for clarification. My views are not important in themselves; nevertheless, setting them out may help to clarify the state of the question and the assumptions involved in ongoing discussions.

‘Bishop in the Woods’

In the past, I have held very firmly that the Church requires us to believe that there will always exist living successors of the Apostles in the full sense, and therefore that such bishops must in fact be present in the world.

If this is indeed what the Church requires us to believe, then it is not necessary to prove how or where such men exist today; it is especially unnecessary (and indeed illegitimate) to make such proof a condition of belief. As Pope Pius XI taught in Casti Conubii:

“[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 […]”1

With the teaching of the Church, we believe first in order to understand (credo ut intelligam) – and not the other way around; and any difficulties that might arise from what we are to believe can be despised in the words of Cardinal Newman: “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.”

But is it what the Church requires us to believe? And in what sense are we required to understand it? I will return to this latter question below.

This idea has been satirically labelled the “Bishop in the Woods” theory. Such claims often rest on the underlying assumptions that (a) the visibility of the Church’s hierarchy and notes cannot be obscured, and (b) that something can only be said to exist or to be visible if it is known to a large majority. (Incidentally, such claims themselves entail the obscuration of the hierarchy and the notes of the Church.)

My first reply to this is that “Bishop in the Woods” is a term, possibly coined by the late Fr Cekada, which satirises the ideas in question, rather than describing them – let alone refuting them. Nobody speaking about the continuity of the hierarchy in this way is thinking of bishops hiding in the woods.

My second reply is that at least some of those who employ this term are themselves open to a similar criticism. Some of them hold that bishops consecrated in emergency situations without a Roman mandate now constitute the Church’s hierarchy. Such a position could equally be caricatured as a theory of “Bishops in the Garage,” another term coined by Fr Cekada prior to his acceptance of the legitimacy of Archbishop Thuc’s episcopal consecrations – consecrations which I also accept.

Whether this satirical moniker is used to describe this theory or not, I do not see how its proponents can deny that it itself constitutes a significant obscuration of the Church’s hierarchy and four notes – even while these proponents insist that there can no longer be living residential bishops (or their equivalents) of whom we are unaware, due to the supposed impossibility of the Church’s visibility being obscured.

Attaining office during an interregnum

I am not ready to set out the arguments which I have found compelling in a formal way at present. Nonetheless, here are some brief comments.

All parties to this discussion profess to agree that jurisdiction passes through the Roman Pontiff; Pope Pius XII taught this doctrine on three occasions. However, Mgr Joseph Clifford Fenton made the following point on the topic:

“Victoria, outstanding theologian though he was, seems to have misconstrued the question at issue, and to have imagined that in some way the traditional teaching involved the implication that all bishops had been placed in their sees by appointment from Rome. […]
“The teaching of Pope Pius XII on the origin of the episcopal jurisdiction is not a claim that St. Peter and his successors in the Roman See have always appointed directly every other bishop within the Church of Jesus Christ. It does mean, however, that every other bishop who is the ordinary of a diocese holds his position by the consent and at least the tacit approval of the Holy See. Furthermore, it means that the Bishop of Rome can, according to the divine constitution of the Church itself, remove particular cases from the jurisdiction of the bishops and transfer them to his own jurisdiction. Finally it signifies that any bishop not in union with the Holy Father has no authority over the faithful.”

The person soliciting my views on the topic appears to hold that traditionalist bishops constitute what is left of the hierarchy of the Church by the “tacit will” of past popes. But as is clear above, a man may attain to a diocesan see (and thus the jurisdiction which is attached to it) by the tacit will of a living Pope, without his explicit involvement – at least under some circumstances. Such a man would be a Successor of the Apostles in the full sense. Fr Diego Lainez SJ (d. 1565) – an authority on whom my critic relies – cites the following patristic examples:

“For persecution itself, in which it is not permitted for bishops to exercise their proper [ministry] grants jurisdiction, by tacit consent of superiors, who do not want souls to perish. Hence, it is said in the Tripartite History, from Eusebius: ‘Meanwhile, Eusebius, bishop of Samosata, while being deported into exile, worked strenuously at apostolic labors. Seeing that many churches were despoiled of their shepherds, he put on military garb, and covering his head with a helmet, traveled around Syria, along with Phoenicia and Palestine, ordaining priests and deacons, and filling other offices of the church. But wherever he found bishops who agreed with him, he constituted them the heads of churches who were lacking in them.’
“And again it is said, in the same place: ‘Therefore, Athanasius proceeded through Pelusium towards Alexandria. Passing through the cities, he taught that all should avoid the Arians, and embrace the dogma of consubstantiality. In certain churches, however, he performed ordinations. And this was the beginning of another quarrel against him; because he presumed to ordain in the churches of others [other bishops].’ From this it is concluded that it is permitted even to extend jurisdiction on account of necessity; and because they did not consider this, they unjustly reprehended Athanasius.’
“Therefore elsewhere in the Tripartite History, it is said of Theodosius’s activity in the Constantinopolitan synod: ‘But he, gravely concerned that a division was again coming about, begged everyone to search for a praiseworthy man, in order to ordain him bishop. Then, agreeing with these words, they appointed Nectarius, a man of a family distinguished by nobility, bishop of the city of Constantinople. Maximus, however, who was tainted with the contagion of Apollinaris, was stripped of his pontifical dignity and ejected. Then also they passed a law, that the bishop of Constantinople should have the privileges of honor after the Roman pontiff, because it is the new Rome. They also reaffirmed the faith of Nicea, and established patriarchs, distributing provinces, so that the bishops of each diocese should not go to outside churches; for this used to be done at one time indifferently on account of the time of persecution.’”2 (Emphases in the document as provided)

Although Fr Lainez is cited in evidence of the thesis that traditionalist bishops constitute the hierarchy of the Church, I understand these examples to show the legitimacy, not merely of consecrating bishops on the basis of the tacit will of the Pope, but also of appointing them to offices, and on the same basis. The jurisdiction extended in Fr Lainez’s examples seems to refer to that of appointments to offices, the validity of which results in the attainment of the jurisdiction which is attached to them.

Elsewhere, Fr Lainez defends the idea that the salvation of souls could be adequately achieved through means other than dioceses having “their own proper and particular bishop”, but this obviously does not exclude the possibility of a man attaining office by virtue of the “tacit will of the Popes.”3 Indeed, the theologian Dieckmann – cited in the same document which was provided to me – states:

“For even if an explicit confirmation and acknowledgment of the election of some bishop by the bishop of Rome should be lacking, the very communion of the brotherhood and ordination by bishops of the Catholic Church could be considered as a tacit acknowledgment and communication of episcopal jurisdiction.”4

The theologian Fr William Wilmers SJ wrote the following, about appointments to offices made by antipopes during the Great Western Schism:

“[T]he same principles apply as those which apply in supplying jurisdiction when it is a question of a colored title, and of invincible or common error of the faithful. See above p. 257. A priest who is proclaimed as parish priest by simony lacks jurisdiction, according to the canons. But because he is thought to be the parish priest, the simony being unknown, and he has some title, although invalid, therefore he has jurisdiction, because the Church supplies for the defect. The same is to be said of a bishop chosen simoniacally and consequently, according to the canons, lacking jurisdiction; the Church here equally supplies the defect, and thus such a bishop, for the sake of the common good, obtains jurisdiction.
“This is to be applied to the three doubtful Pontiffs, supposing all of them to be doubtful; but with this difference, that it is not the Church but God Himself who supplies for the defect and grants jurisdiction. Indeed, each of the obediences thought and said that its own Pontiff was legitimate, and that the two others were schismatic; and each Pontiff possessed some colored title, and in such manner that for many people it was very difficult, and is so even now, to discern which of them was truly legitimate. Hence, just as God Himself confers jurisdiction to govern the Church on the legitimately elected Pontiff, in the same way He also went on granting jurisdiction on a doubtful Pontiff on account of the invincible error of those adhering to him, to the extent necessary; he himself therefore could confer jurisdiction on the bishops adhering to him. We said "to the extent necessary," that is, for the government of the faithful who adhered to them. But it was not necessary for this purpose that, if they pronounced an anathema on the opposing side and excluded it from the Church, this exclusion should take effect. Hence it does not follow from the fact that their other acts were valid, that the act by which they excommunicated the other side was also valid.”5

Other theologians hold differing interpretations of what took place at this time. However, as I explain below, the relevant point is explaining possibilities that rebut an objection, rather than presenting a full theory. Whether what Wilmers says applies to a false pope making appointments during a vacancy, it is arguing that the appointments of an antipope can be validated by supplied jurisdiction – and thus the full and true attainment of the office, jurisdiction, and formal apostolic succession.

It does not seem clear to me why this should be impossible during an extended vacancy, based on the continuity of the Church’s laws during an interregnum and even the “tacit will of the past popes” who enshrined these laws (although one could perhaps see this as their explicit will), including those which supply jurisdiction under certain circumstances. I have discussed the “virtual continuity” of the Church’s authority in her laws elsewhere, and the implication of this continuity (in reference to St Antoninus, Cardinal Billot, Fr Goupil and others) .6

Returning to the subject, Bishop Mark Pivarunas, in an article titled ‘Episcopal Consecration During Interregnums’ (1996) also provides a list of men consecrated during papal interregna, and provides the following commentary from a Dr Stephano Filiberto:

“On November 29, 1268, Pope Clement IV died, and there began one of the longest periods of interregnum or vacancy of the papal office in the history of the Catholic Church. The cardinals at that time were to assemble in conclave in the city of Viterbo, but through the intrigues of Carlo d’Anglio, King of Naples, discord was sown among the members of the Sacred College and the prospect of any election grew more and more remote.
“After almost three years, the mayor of Viterbo enclosed the cardinals in a palace, allowing them only strict living rations, until a decision would be made which would give to the Church its visible Head. At last, on September 1, 1271, Pope Gregory X was elected to the Chair of Peter.
“During this long period of vacancy of the Apostolic See, vacancies also occurred in many dioceses throughout the world. In order that the priests and faithful might not be left without shepherds, bishops were elected and consecrated to fill the vacant sees. There were accomplished during this time twenty-one known elections and consecrations in various countries. The most important aspect of this historical precedent is that all of these consecrations of bishops were ratified by Pope Gregory X, who consequently affirmed the lawfulness of such consecrations.” (Emphasis added)

Bishop Pivarunas’ article is principally focused on the legitimacy of episcopal consecrations during papal interregna; but once again, the examples cited prove (or at least suggest) that men may attain diocesan sees, and thus the ordinary jurisdiction attached to them, during a vacancy of the Holy See. Whether this is achieved through the “tacit will of past popes”, or through an otherwise invalid appointment being validated by supplied jurisdiction (and thus resulting in the attainment of ordinary jurisdiction), I have found it difficult to see why anyone would consider this impossible, or even implausible – especially if they consider the “tacit will of past popes” capable of providing other forms of jurisdiction.

Current thoughts

Such are some of the arguments I have found compelling in the past.

Over time, however, I have become less certain that the Church strictly requires us to hold that such residential bishops (or their equivalents) must always be exist in act. Certain arguments concerning the significance of a moral continuity – whether established by the Thesis of Cassiciacum’s understanding of a material succession, or not – have given me pause, as have other considerations (such as the implications of Pope Pius XII’s teaching on the Roman Pontiff as the source of jurisdiction). In short, while I retain a very strong inclination towards the thesis that residential bishops (or their equivalents) must continue to exist in the world (viz., this is my opinion), I am presently unsure about what the Church would have us believe on this matter – at least in its implications for our day – and about the force of the arguments above.

In this context, Fr Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange’s description of St Thomas Aquinas’ development of thought regarding the Immaculate Conception is instructive – although I do not, of course, wish to compare myself to St Thomas:

“While writing it I have noticed more than once how often it has happened that a theologian admitted some prerogative of Our Lady in his earlier years under the influence of piety and admiration of her dignity.
“A second period then followed when the doctrinal difficulties came home to him more forcefully, and he was much more reserved in his judgement.
“Finally there was the third period, when, having had time to study the question in its positive and speculative aspects, he returned to his first position, not now because of his sentiment of piety and admiration, but because his more profound understanding of Tradition and theology revealed to him that the measure of the things of God – and in a special way those things of God which affect Mary – is more overflowing than is commonly understood.”7

As I have been asked: I may, perhaps, be said to be in this second stage with regard to the question of the continuity of the hierarchy. Whether I shall return to my earlier certainty, or arrive at a different conclusion, remains to be seen. In any case, my desire is simply to believe whatever it is that the Church proposes for our belief, as expressed in the Act of Faith.

This section has focused much more on what “I think” than The WM Review’s material usually does. It has done so because “my thoughts” are what have been solicited, and I offer them with the protest about the significance attributed to them, especially on a matter of which I do not enjoy certainty.

Apologetic Point

In spite of my current uncertainty on exactly what we are to believe about the continuity of the hierarchy, there is an important aspect of which it is easy to lose sight – namely the apologetic point to be made by the so-called “Bishop in the Woods” theory.

One of the chief objections raised by “sedeplenists” to the thesis of a vacancy of the Holy See is that, they say, such a vacancy would necessarily entail the disappearance of the Church’s hierarchy. Without yet determining (a) whether a such a disappearance is in fact possible simpliciter (as I understand Fr Cekada to have believed), (b) whether a merely material succession would suffice for the continuity of the hierarchy (as is held by adherents of the Cassiciacum Thesis), or (c) whether traditionalist bishops themselves constitute the true successors of the Apostles, I believe that it remains both possible and useful to demonstrate that a papal vacancy does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there are no longer any residential bishops (or their equivalents).

In other words, there is a value in showing that residential bishops (or their equivalents) could continue to exist in act, and that Catholic men could accede to ecclesiastical offices, even during a vacancy of the Holy See. But this argument is directed not primarily at establishing that such a situation actually obtains, but rather to rebutting the claim that it is impossible by showing that it is possible.

I may be mistaken in thinking it possible, or in thinking that this apologetic point is of particular importance. Nevertheless, framing the issue in this way – as a response to an objection, rather than the setting out of a theory – may provide greater clarity as to the state of the question, and the status of competing solutions. At the very least, it should dispel the dismissiveness with which the “Bishop in the Woods theory” has sometimes been treated, and illustrate why the demand that surviving residential bishops be concretely identified is an inadequate response. There are several layers of hypotheticals involved which such a demand fails to appreciate.

One implication of the possibility that the hierarchy may remain in a diminished and obscured form in the world is that it undermines – though it does not exclude – the claim that traditionalist bishops must necessarily have become true successors of the Apostles by an equivalence to residential bishops (at least in so far as this argument has been based on claim of a universal negative). Such traditionalist bishops may indeed possess this status (and I remain unconvinced of this), but the necessity of the conclusion, insofar as it is based on the supposed impossibility of residential bishops existing in act, is weakened. On the other hand, the attainment of this status by traditionalist bishops would not exclude the survival of true residential bishops who continue to hold and exercise authority.

(In passing, it may also be noted that the materialiter posited by the Cassiciacum Thesis with regard to “Novus Ordo bishops” does not appear to exclude the possibility that true residential bishops might still survive either. In other words, such a conclusion is independent of and compatible with both with the Thesis and the idea that traditionalist bishops are members of the hierarchy.)

Even if traditionalist bishops are indeed part of the Church’s visible hierarchy, I believe that it would remain apologetically important to demonstrate that (a) the questions of a vacant Holy See and of apostolic succession are distinct, and (b) that the former does not necessitate the latter. Since this objection is among the principal arguments raised against our conclusions, it is beneficial to place as many legitimate responses as possible on the table. Similarly, even if one were not personally inclined to hold that residential bishops (or their equivalents) survive, such arguments would retain their value in dialogue with sedeplenists, as they undermine the force of their objection.

Concluding Note

This note is offered not as a solution to the complex questions surrounding apostolicity and the continuity of the hierarchy, but as an account of my present understanding and leanings – in answer to those who have solicited them, and (for whatever reason) consider them to be important.

Further study and thought may confirm, modify, or even overturn these views. For the moment, however, it seems both prudent and useful to keep open the range of theological possibilities consistent with the Church’s doctrine, while continuing to seek greater clarity on the matter.

Post-Script: On Papal Elections and a ‘solution’ to the crisis

As mentioned, the critic, to whom these notes have principally addressed, made the manifestation of my state of mind on these complex questions a condition for answering a rather simple question which I had addressed to him. In the course of those discussions, this person also levelled the following criticisms and demands against me:

“We are still waiting for you to tell us what you think your solution is since you don't hold the Thesis.”

“From now on, anytime you ask me a question or anytime you criticize the theological solutions of others, I will respond by asking you once again to tell us what you think is the solution. I will do this until you finally tell us, and then you and I can discuss answers to other questions. Otherwise, you are like the annoying person criticizing everyone's technique at baseball and saying that everyone is wrong yet never telling us what is supposedly the correct way to play baseball. That isn’t helpful to anyone.”

“How are we going to get the next pope according to the solution which you seem to think you have and which no one else has?
“You have literally offered nothing to this discussion. All you have done is criticize anyone with whom you disagree while you pretend to take the high road.”

In order to forestall further conditions for engagement and attempts to evade my questions (as well as to refute the calumnious insinuations of evasiveness on my part from this person, in the messages above and elsewhere), I am adding some final comments on what I believe to be the “solution to the crisis.”

My answer to this is very simple: I do not know. I have never claimed to know; I do not consider it strictly necessary to know. I do not deny that it is possible to know, but my main concern has been to rebut the objection that there are no possible solutions, rather than to propose one solution in a definitive way.

I have long been open to a range of possible solutions, and The WM Review has published several texts explaining some of them:

Papal elections without the cardinals? – St Robert Bellarmine
Papal elections without the cardinals? – Journet & Cajetan
What is the Church like during a period of sede vacante? Journet & Cajetan tell us
Papal elections without the cardinals? – Gaspar Hurtado SJ
Papal elections without the cardinals? – Cardinal Billot
Papal elections without the cardinals? – Francisco de Victoria OP
The Church could elect a pope even after a long vacancy: here’s how – M.J. McCusker
Fake conclave, true pope? – S.D. Wright
2 weeks or 60 years: Which fits Franzelin’s account of sede vacante?

My chief crimes, according to my critic, appear to be (a) my failure to accept his solution, and (b) my failure to have decided which, among many possibilities, is the true solution to a problem which baffles nearly everyone.

The one thing I do know is that there either is a solution (whether it be one of the options currently on the table, or something else), or that we are at the end of the world, or both.

I am mystified as to why this person believes it is necessary to throw one’s hat in with one particular solution. I am even more mystified as to why he believes this is a legitimate condition for engagement, or that someone not having a specific solution to offer renders his criticism and observation comparable to “the annoying person criticizing everyone’s technique at baseball and saying that everyone is wrong yet never telling us what is supposedly the correct way to play baseball.”

The attitude reminds me of certain managers in the professional world, who say they “want solutions rather than problems”. But sometimes solutions aren’t available yet, and may never be. Sometimes solutions will not appear unless the problems are properly recognised. Sometimes the closet thing to a solution is simply to stop what one is doing, to avoid making things worse.

This attitude also reminds me of what we saw in 2020-2021. During that time, there were many who believed that masks, mandatory experimental medication, social distancing and so on, were the solution to the supposed health crisis. It was obviously legitimate to object to these measures, to criticise them, and to point out the problems in adopting them, even without having an alternative solution to the situation (assuming, that is, that a solution was even needed). My critic himself would surely not have accepted the arguments of those who could have said said, “If you don’t have an alternative solution, then stay totally silent, take your injection, and comply with my solution.”

In some cases, such an attitude can also be based on faulty presuppositions. In the case of those advocating extraordinary measures to bring the crisis to an end, it sometimes appears to from the premise that “We cannot do nothing.” But if we cannot do “Nothing,” then “We have to do something.” Then “Something” becomes either

“Anything” (because if “We cannot do nothing”, then “Anything” is better than “Nothing”); or
“The idea upon which we have alighted” – the legitimacy of which is taken to be proved by the absence of any better alternative (as judged, of course, by the advocates of the line of conduct in question).

Another related attitude pertains to the question of the hierarchy. “We function as if the traditionalist bishops are the hierarchy”, we are told; “Therefore they are the hierarchy.” The hidden minor premise here is this: “The way in which we function determines reality.” But aside from being obviously gratuitous, this is putting a lot of weight on the rectitude of our own actions, and ignoring the possibility of other explanations that are in keeping with the facts. For example, it might be true that we act in this way, but that the reason for this is that we are doing our best to conform ourselves, in a conditional way, to how things function normally – whilst being deprived of the actual legitimate hierarchy.

Behind both these attitudes, I believe, lie tendencies towards a latent “Americanism”, condemned by Pope Leo XIII. One aspect of the Americanist presuppositions is as follows:

“This overesteem of natural virtue finds a method of expression in assuming to divide all virtues in active and passive, and it is alleged that whereas passive virtues found better place in past times, our age is to be characterized by the active.”8

Such presuppositions, I believe, are present in some of the condemnations of those who do not believe that traditionalist bishops can elect a Pope – especially when the critics assert that this lack of belief is based on comfort, complacency, or presumption on God’s grace – or on passivity or “doing nothing”. Against such presuppositions, Leo XIII continued:

“That such a division and distinction cannot be maintained is patent—for there is not, nor can there be, merely passive virtue. ‘Virtue,’ says St. Thomas Aquinas, ‘designates the perfection of some faculty, but end of such faculty is an act, and an act of virtue is naught else than the good use of free will,’ acting, that is to say, under the grace of God if the act be one of supernatural virtue.”9

Sometimes “Nothing” – what appears to be “passivity” – is indeed the right thing to do. But in any case, what is done – keeping the faith, raising our children, evangelising, and in the case of the clergy teaching, administering the sacraments, and so on – is far from “passivity” or “doing nothing.” On the contrary, it is doing what is clearly our duty.

Further, sometimes “Something” is the wrong thing to do. The sons of Aaron did wrong in offering strange fire before the Lord; Saul did wrong in offering sacrifice to God, rather than waiting for Samuel; and Oza did wrong in putting his hand forth to stop the Ark falling. By contrast, the Psalms and the rest of the Scriptures contain many injunctions to “wait” for the Lord, with Psalm 26 telling us directly:

“I believe to see the good things of the Lord in the land of the living.
“Expect the Lord, do manfully, and let thy heart take courage, and wait thou for the Lord.”

Will my answer here be sufficient for my critic? Or will my answer of nescience be made the basis of ridicule and dismissal – as if any solution is better than nescience?

Will the questions which I have posed to him remain unanswered, or be made subject to further conditions?

We will see. In any case, I hope the incomplete and tentative considerations in this article will be of use to someone.

The WM Review

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?