Fr Thomas Crean appeals to the visibility of the Church as a means of refuting those who posit an extended vacancy of the Holy See. But this treatment is radically insufficient.
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.
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?
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.
"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.
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?).
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.
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.
"The expression "conciliar church" is convenient because it designates at once the origin, the scope, and the content of a whole set of doctrines, practices, and deviations that are diametrically opposed to the Catholic religion. But this convenience should not be misleading: there is no religious society that one day constituted itself as an independent entity and adopted the name "conciliar church"; there is no kind of pseudo- or quasi-mystical body antagonistic to the Catholic Church: the mystical body of the devil, perhaps? To make the conciliar church a fully constituted religious society, possessing its own identity and legal status, is a work of imagination."
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.
Sir, there is no "conciliar Church". That's the entire point. There is a non-Catholic religion colonizing the structures of the Church and the minds of Catholics. The extent to which they assent to that religion would situate them outside or inside the Church, but that is only known to God. IF there were a reigning Pontiff, he could engage his infallibility in declaring somebody or entire groups as "formal heretics" (think St. Pius V vs. Elisabeth of England, "Regnans in excelsis"), but precisely there is an absence of such an authority.
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.
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?"
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.
Good quotes, thank you for providing them. However, there are a few things I have to take issue with:
- If you write "radically insufficient" within quotation marks in the title, that may suggest that there is some reference within the body of the article where that phrase can be found, but no, that's the author's personal conclusion. Although I agree with it, I think the title is slightly misleading. I searched the whole thing for a quote by a classical author where it said that visibility alone was "radically insufficient" but there isn't one.
- I don't think that one should recognize some entity in the "Conciliar/Synodal Church". One may say "Conciliar Church" in some improper sense but there is really no such a thing. Admitting at least implicitly that it does exist gives the sedevacantist position a gnostic turn, something that doesn't help getting the point across. Something similar happens with the term "antipope" used to describe Paul VI and his successors. It is simply wrong. The "anti" in antipope implies that there is a true reigning Roman Pontiff whose authority Paul VI and his successors are/were contesting. They are simply "non-Popes", they don't possess the authority that is proper to the Pope. I hold to the "Cassiciacum thesis", whose objective is to restrain us from admitting something beyond what the Faith demands us to admit and it is not of Faith that there exists a "Conciliar Church". We can only say that Paul VI and his successors have attempted to impose a non-Catholic religion upon the True Church and that the vast majority of Catholics have adhered to that religion to some extent only known to God. Do they form a "new church", an "antichurch"? I don't think so.
- You really shouldn't refer to the author as "Father" Crean. I know that one should avoid being overtly provocative or offensive, but in this case, it is a matter of truth. Is that man really a priest? No, because he was "ordained" using a non-Catholic rite. It is nothing personal against him, it's a matter of truth and of the testimony of one of the most painful aspects of the Conciliar revolution (sacramental validity). You did the same thing with Mr. Zuhlsdorf ("Fr. Z"). Peace and grace be unto them, but you cannot call them something that they aren't, especially if that entails obscuring one of the most important points of the traditionalist cause.
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.
2. "We can attain true knowledge beyond what the faith teaches." - yes, but if what is being discussed is the constitution of the Church and specifically the Papacy (both supernatural and therefore the object of Faith), you cannot affirm more or less than what the Faith strictly demands. That's the big issue with "totalism" aka "Bellarmine sedevacantism" in my opinion.
3. I just want to point out that Donald Sanborn's title policy doesn't mean anything to me although I hold the Cassiciacum Thesis.
The original formulation of the Thesis only recognizes a "material papacy" because that's the bare minimum to preserve apostolicity. The thesis does not recognize material "bishops", "priests" or "monsignors" (Sanborn made that argument to justify his treatment of Fr. Viganò as "Monsignor") apointed by material popes. Recognizing some material aspect in an appointment other than the papacy outright contradicts the conclusion of the Thesis that all the acts of a non-Pope are null and void. There is one material pope, but no "material hierarchy". This is one (incorrect) development of the Thesis that Fr. Belmont pointed out. I'd be surprised if you didn't know about it:
Much less I give any credit to Sanborn by virtue of his episcopal consecration without apostolic mandate, which is "an offense against the unity of the Church" - Pope Pius XII, Ad Apostolorum Principis. No amount of epikia/Ecclesia supplet can justify such a consecration. For more info about this, check Fr. Belmont's writings:
"The expression "conciliar church" is convenient because it designates at once the origin, the scope, and the content of a whole set of doctrines, practices, and deviations that are diametrically opposed to the Catholic religion. But this convenience should not be misleading: there is no religious society that one day constituted itself as an independent entity and adopted the name "conciliar church"; there is no kind of pseudo- or quasi-mystical body antagonistic to the Catholic Church: the mystical body of the devil, perhaps? To make the conciliar church a fully constituted religious society, possessing its own identity and legal status, is a work of imagination."
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.
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.
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.
Thanks Bill! We will see...
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?
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.
Thanks Sean!
There are two more parts to come...
"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.
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?).
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.
Isn’t that exactly what they are called?
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.
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.
Personally I don't think this is necessary, or going to achieve anything significant.
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.
Where did this ever happen ?
' Ever noticed no other council is called ‘II’; i.e Constantinople II. '
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.
"The expression "conciliar church" is convenient because it designates at once the origin, the scope, and the content of a whole set of doctrines, practices, and deviations that are diametrically opposed to the Catholic religion. But this convenience should not be misleading: there is no religious society that one day constituted itself as an independent entity and adopted the name "conciliar church"; there is no kind of pseudo- or quasi-mystical body antagonistic to the Catholic Church: the mystical body of the devil, perhaps? To make the conciliar church a fully constituted religious society, possessing its own identity and legal status, is a work of imagination."
- Fr. Hervé Belmont (French sedevacantist priest)
Source: https://www.quicumque.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Confirmations-Quintero-etc.-justification.pdf
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.
Sir, there is no "conciliar Church". That's the entire point. There is a non-Catholic religion colonizing the structures of the Church and the minds of Catholics. The extent to which they assent to that religion would situate them outside or inside the Church, but that is only known to God. IF there were a reigning Pontiff, he could engage his infallibility in declaring somebody or entire groups as "formal heretics" (think St. Pius V vs. Elisabeth of England, "Regnans in excelsis"), but precisely there is an absence of such an authority.
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.
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
Oh, yes, if Paul VI said something existed, it must definitely exist, like religious liberty as a human right, etc. /s
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
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.
Here are a collection of writings, both prophetic & based on Scripture & Tradition on the Church in the latter days:
novusordowatch.org/2024/01/great-apostasy-persecution-death-of-catholic-church
novusordowatch.org/2024/07/mystical-passion-of-the-church-real-vs-fake
whitesmoke1958.com/scripture-scholars-ancient-and-modern
whitesmoke1958.com/prophecies-for-searching-souls
Good quotes, thank you for providing them. However, there are a few things I have to take issue with:
- If you write "radically insufficient" within quotation marks in the title, that may suggest that there is some reference within the body of the article where that phrase can be found, but no, that's the author's personal conclusion. Although I agree with it, I think the title is slightly misleading. I searched the whole thing for a quote by a classical author where it said that visibility alone was "radically insufficient" but there isn't one.
- I don't think that one should recognize some entity in the "Conciliar/Synodal Church". One may say "Conciliar Church" in some improper sense but there is really no such a thing. Admitting at least implicitly that it does exist gives the sedevacantist position a gnostic turn, something that doesn't help getting the point across. Something similar happens with the term "antipope" used to describe Paul VI and his successors. It is simply wrong. The "anti" in antipope implies that there is a true reigning Roman Pontiff whose authority Paul VI and his successors are/were contesting. They are simply "non-Popes", they don't possess the authority that is proper to the Pope. I hold to the "Cassiciacum thesis", whose objective is to restrain us from admitting something beyond what the Faith demands us to admit and it is not of Faith that there exists a "Conciliar Church". We can only say that Paul VI and his successors have attempted to impose a non-Catholic religion upon the True Church and that the vast majority of Catholics have adhered to that religion to some extent only known to God. Do they form a "new church", an "antichurch"? I don't think so.
- You really shouldn't refer to the author as "Father" Crean. I know that one should avoid being overtly provocative or offensive, but in this case, it is a matter of truth. Is that man really a priest? No, because he was "ordained" using a non-Catholic rite. It is nothing personal against him, it's a matter of truth and of the testimony of one of the most painful aspects of the Conciliar revolution (sacramental validity). You did the same thing with Mr. Zuhlsdorf ("Fr. Z"). Peace and grace be unto them, but you cannot call them something that they aren't, especially if that entails obscuring one of the most important points of the traditionalist cause.
God bless!
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.
1. Whatever you say, my apologies.
2. "We can attain true knowledge beyond what the faith teaches." - yes, but if what is being discussed is the constitution of the Church and specifically the Papacy (both supernatural and therefore the object of Faith), you cannot affirm more or less than what the Faith strictly demands. That's the big issue with "totalism" aka "Bellarmine sedevacantism" in my opinion.
3. I just want to point out that Donald Sanborn's title policy doesn't mean anything to me although I hold the Cassiciacum Thesis.
The original formulation of the Thesis only recognizes a "material papacy" because that's the bare minimum to preserve apostolicity. The thesis does not recognize material "bishops", "priests" or "monsignors" (Sanborn made that argument to justify his treatment of Fr. Viganò as "Monsignor") apointed by material popes. Recognizing some material aspect in an appointment other than the papacy outright contradicts the conclusion of the Thesis that all the acts of a non-Pope are null and void. There is one material pope, but no "material hierarchy". This is one (incorrect) development of the Thesis that Fr. Belmont pointed out. I'd be surprised if you didn't know about it:
https://www.wmreview.org/p/the-cassiciacum-thesis-one-explanation
Much less I give any credit to Sanborn by virtue of his episcopal consecration without apostolic mandate, which is "an offense against the unity of the Church" - Pope Pius XII, Ad Apostolorum Principis. No amount of epikia/Ecclesia supplet can justify such a consecration. For more info about this, check Fr. Belmont's writings:
https://www.quicumque.com/
In Spanish here (my own website):
https://nonexcid3t.blogspot.com/2026/02/las-hijas-de-lot.html
God bless!
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.
"The expression "conciliar church" is convenient because it designates at once the origin, the scope, and the content of a whole set of doctrines, practices, and deviations that are diametrically opposed to the Catholic religion. But this convenience should not be misleading: there is no religious society that one day constituted itself as an independent entity and adopted the name "conciliar church"; there is no kind of pseudo- or quasi-mystical body antagonistic to the Catholic Church: the mystical body of the devil, perhaps? To make the conciliar church a fully constituted religious society, possessing its own identity and legal status, is a work of imagination."
- Fr. Hervé Belmont
Source: https://www.quicumque.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Confirmations-Quintero-etc.-justification.pdf
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.
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.
Thank you!