31 Comments
User's avatar
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Feb 17Edited
Comment deleted
S.D. Wright's avatar

Thank you for your comment. I'm afraid I think the three points you make are basically all pedantry.

1. It was an article written by me, personally. So of course it contains my personal conclusions. I also didn't argue that "visibility alone" is sufficient, I argued that material, and maybe formal, visibility, is not sufficient. Also it was an excerpt from the article. It's a standard way of titling things. I don't agree that it's misleading.

2. I think this is pedantry. We can attain true knowledge beyond what the faith teaches. I don't agree that the language isn't usable, even though it has shortcomings.

3. Please see out style conventions in our about page. My understanding is that Bishop Sanborn follows a similar convention.

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Feb 17Edited
Comment deleted
S.D. Wright's avatar

Thanks Rogelio, of course I am aware of what you say – especially that which I translated for this very website. However I don't agree.

Bill Wierzbinski's avatar

If it could be made to happen, perhaps once this multi part article is fully published, it would be a fantastic opportunity to get Fr. Crean, yourself, and Dr. K on with the usual folks, like Radical Fidelity, The Catholic Esquire, Novus Ordo Watch, CFP, and Bishop Sanborn all in one place for a thorough discussion on Kokx News.

S.D. Wright's avatar

Thanks Bill! We will see...

Stephen's avatar

If I am not mistaken, St Michael told the Venerable Catherine Emmerich that if she was the only Catholic there would be the Catholic Church! How appropriate for these times don’t u think?

Sean Johnson's avatar

What a tour de force!

I was recently on Stephen Kokx’s “Trad Roundup,” and one of the panelists (Matt Gaspers) was making the visibility argument against one of his sedevacantist interlocutors, saying that visibility destroys the entire sedevacantist argument.

Because we’d all agreed to an agenda in advance (which was supposed to discuss the forthcoming SSPX episcopal consecrations), and this digression had already gone on for some time, I held my peace and refrained from interjecting, out of respect for Mr. Kokx.

But now I’m glad I did, because my own comments could not possibly have been as lucid, cogent, and complete as what is written here.

A truly excellent article, and one to bookmark!

I still retain the hope that one day you guys will take all these great articles and join them together in book form. They can stand alone as chapters. It wouldn’t take much to do.

Very, very well done. Wow.

S.D. Wright's avatar

Thanks Sean!

There are two more parts to come...

cairsahr_stjoseph's avatar

"In this article, we will refer to this body of men as The Conciliar/Synodal Church."

That works, but I am calling it the "Second Vatican Church" - deliberately omitting any reference to a council. Because that was not a council of the Catholic Church, but a new establishment. Might seem confusing at first, but Novus Ordos might hear things differently if they hear it that way.

RosaryKnight's avatar

I kind of like the name, "counterfeit Vatican II church of darkness."

Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) had seen in her visions a “counterfeit church of darkness” occupying Rome at some time in the future, in an era when she also saw the priest facing the people when saying Mass.

"I saw again the new and odd looking church that they were trying to build. There was nothing holy about it. People did not receive the Body of our Lord but only bread. Then [Jesus] said to me, "This is Babel" (The Mass in many languages?).

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Mar 2
Comment deleted
S.D. Wright's avatar

I agree, although it does not follow that the Conciliar Church is equivalent to the Catholic Church. They are not identical, but the former is (as far as I can see it) not precisely a separate sect. Hence the frequent qualifications made throughout this piece and elsewhere.

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Mar 2
Comment deleted
S.D. Wright's avatar

There is though, at least as I defined it on the piece. I'm happy to concede it isn't a society, but it I'd a reality. It is a group of men who can be denoted in a particular way. It's evident, before our eyes.

RosaryKnight's avatar

False Pope Paul VI to Lay Leaders in 1966: Transform Yourselves “into the Image of the Conciliar Church”!

novusordowatch.org/2022/04/paul6-lay-leaders-transform-into-conciliar-church

cairsahr_stjoseph's avatar

You are still saying ‘Vatican II’ as though it is an extension of The Vatican Council.

Ever noticed no other council is called ‘II’; i.e Constantinople II.

That’s because V2 is really “The Second Vatican”, as though there can be another true Church.

S.D. Wright's avatar

Isn’t that exactly what they are called?

cairsahr_stjoseph's avatar

Yes but no. This is perceptions.

When we say "Vatican II" we are already conceding continuity. When I say " The Second Vatican" I mean a second 'City', not in continuity.

There is no 'Vatican II' as if connected with the first. Drop the council. There wasn't one.

Also called "The Vatican Church". Note the council is dropped. Novus Ordos need to hear it in these terms.

cairsahr_stjoseph's avatar

Novus Ordo Watch called it a "Post-Catholic Vatican" which is a great designation. Just not as subtle in terms of making them as why we drop 'council' from the terms.

S.D. Wright's avatar

Personally I don't think this is necessary, or going to achieve anything significant.

cairsahr_stjoseph's avatar

Just like everything else hitherto.

Perhaps if a bishop said so it will seem more applicable. We will keep referring to 'V2', and that is auto-continuity with 'The Vatican Council'.

I think perhaps later on this might catch on.

cairsahr_stjoseph's avatar

Where did this ever happen ?

' Ever noticed no other council is called ‘II’; i.e Constantinople II. '

cairsahr_stjoseph's avatar

I am in the the position of talking to sedes as though they were novus ordos or converts. You are like 'this will make mo difference' as though psychology is a new thing.

RosaryKnight's avatar

Excellent!

When you say, the Conciliar/Synodal church "includes both an ever-shrinking number of Catholics and an ever-growing number of those who have openly and truly ceased to be Catholics, but have not yet been declared as such by authority," who is the authority to declare such? One of the sede bishops? The true Church in the future under a valid pope? If the latter, it would seem to have to be the result of the miraculous intervention of heaven.

It's interesting to note that Blessed Anna Maria Taigi prophesied that Sts Peter & Paul will appear in Rome to the astonishment of all & appoint a pope after a long period with the Chair of Peter held by false popes. This is from Feeneyite MHFM but I think it contains material worth watching: "Did The Bible Predict 70 Years Without A Pope?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2xYLg0M2LY&t=774s

S.D. Wright's avatar

I’m not sure i’m able to answer that. An ordinary would have had that power over his subjects, I think. But the remaining ordinaries disn’t do it, and many of themselves have ceased to be Catholic too.

Mark Gross's avatar

Excellent article, as I am finding is a consistant "note" of this Substack site. Thank you.

Perhaps Dr K will consider publishing a volume similar to "Ultramontanism and Tradition: The Role of Papal Authority in the Catholic Faith" that would be a collection of essays on both sides of this discussion.

And let's not forget the "Old Romans," they got left out of Dr K's earlier work.

Michael Wilson's avatar

I beggars the imagination to think that a person would hold to the opinion that a public heretic dressed up in a white outfit somehow maintains the visibility of the Catholic Church.

Great article, I am looking forward to reading the rest of it.