Hi. I look forward to reading this document. Is there any way to print it? Everything I’ve tried sends me out of Substack, and I’m only recognized as a subscriber if I’m in Substack. Clicking the sign-in link outside of Substack only brings me back to Substack. It would be easier to think about what I’m reading if it’s printed out.
I started in the app and it took me to the website where I’d end up in that loop. I did go to my laptop and was able to copy and paste the article. I just finished reading it and am very grateful for the amount of time you put into your articles. I wouldn’t even be able to summarize what you’ve said well enough to explain why my conscience has led me to sedevacantism but I can refer people here. I can’t “stay” with that Conciliar/Synodal institution that is clearly not, and doesn’t want to be, the true Catholic Church.
Great! I'm glad you go in in the end, and thank you! As for the technical problems, I'm nor sure what to suggest... perhaps the old uninstall and reinstall might do the trixk
I am waiting until Friday evening to have sufficient time to read this article in a single sitting, as the author recommends.
+de Mallerais once argued that it could be shown that the conciliar church was a distinct entity from its four causes (formal, efficient, final, and material):
This was the Frankenchurch theory (ie., one pope for two churches). However, the four causes analysis was perfectly correct, and succeeded in proving the existence of a distinct conciliar entity foreign to the Catholic Church. He only got the pope part wrong, which he thought tethered the two together.
If now there is an additional argument from the four marks/notes -and I suspect I will be satisfied the author will have succeeded in making his case- proving the conciliar entity is a distinct entity from the Catholic Church, the recognition of the papal vacancy will be facilitated for those giving the matter a fair consideration, simply from the cumulation of arguments (to say nothing of the intrinsic strength of those arguments).
The biggest impediments will continue to be disposition and apathy (ie., the lack of moral diligence mentioned as requisite in Part I).
I will also be interested to discover to what degree the two arguments harmonize with each other (eg., is there a causal relationship between the two: Because the four causes are different, therefore the four marks/notes are different. Cause and effect?).
Just want to say that while immersed in an FSSP community I was minding my own business reading the Roman Catechism [Council of Trent] on unity, and was able to draw these conclusions on my own from the text: that the unity of the church is primarily based on unity of faith and that this would have to mean external profession; unity of sacraments and government (not that we have it!) would necessarily be based on the unity of faith.
This was so explicit it surprised me to realize both the perfect logic and the clarity that already exists. In my surprise I was trying to explain this to my husband; we wondered if this overlapped with the articles of the Apostles Creed (can we agree on the Apostles Creed, people?!). I ran through it in my mind, then exclaimed “I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH. They redefined the meaning of Holy Catholic Church!!”
I’m just saying: we appreciate the footnotes: of course! Necessary. But want to suggest that a normal old lady can realize that the “Church” isn’t the Church because they have changed the sense of the terms and have lost the unity of Faith.
I have not yet had the opportunity to read the full article, sadly. However, since we were invited to do so, here are two (very) minor typographical corrections:
(1) what precedes footnote 28 should read "and only 10% said that it should be ILLEGAL in all cases."
(2) In footnote 4, I believe you meant to write "[...] WM Review in 2021," not "WM Review 2021."
Thanks for this excellent book. I have but one suggestion: that the chapters and chapter headings in the contents be hyperlinked to their location in the text so that it might be swiftly navigated by readers and those referring back to it in online discussions.
I hope you are interviewed by many more media sources on this topic. May God continue to bless your work. I will send up some prayers in thanksgiving for it.
Hi. I look forward to reading this document. Is there any way to print it? Everything I’ve tried sends me out of Substack, and I’m only recognized as a subscriber if I’m in Substack. Clicking the sign-in link outside of Substack only brings me back to Substack. It would be easier to think about what I’m reading if it’s printed out.
That's weird. Are you on your phone or computer?
I was on my phone. I'll try my laptop.
And were you on the app or the Web browser?
I started in the app and it took me to the website where I’d end up in that loop. I did go to my laptop and was able to copy and paste the article. I just finished reading it and am very grateful for the amount of time you put into your articles. I wouldn’t even be able to summarize what you’ve said well enough to explain why my conscience has led me to sedevacantism but I can refer people here. I can’t “stay” with that Conciliar/Synodal institution that is clearly not, and doesn’t want to be, the true Catholic Church.
Great! I'm glad you go in in the end, and thank you! As for the technical problems, I'm nor sure what to suggest... perhaps the old uninstall and reinstall might do the trixk
If that happens to me, I usually copy and paste into a word processor.
Sean,
very, very good article; long, but necessarily so. Your marshalling of the great number of documents into a very coherent apologia is remarkable.
Thank you for undertaking this necessary and important defense of the Catholic faith.
Thank you Michael! Yes, it was long....
I am waiting until Friday evening to have sufficient time to read this article in a single sitting, as the author recommends.
+de Mallerais once argued that it could be shown that the conciliar church was a distinct entity from its four causes (formal, efficient, final, and material):
https://dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/
This was the Frankenchurch theory (ie., one pope for two churches). However, the four causes analysis was perfectly correct, and succeeded in proving the existence of a distinct conciliar entity foreign to the Catholic Church. He only got the pope part wrong, which he thought tethered the two together.
If now there is an additional argument from the four marks/notes -and I suspect I will be satisfied the author will have succeeded in making his case- proving the conciliar entity is a distinct entity from the Catholic Church, the recognition of the papal vacancy will be facilitated for those giving the matter a fair consideration, simply from the cumulation of arguments (to say nothing of the intrinsic strength of those arguments).
The biggest impediments will continue to be disposition and apathy (ie., the lack of moral diligence mentioned as requisite in Part I).
I will also be interested to discover to what degree the two arguments harmonize with each other (eg., is there a causal relationship between the two: Because the four causes are different, therefore the four marks/notes are different. Cause and effect?).
Looking forward to this article!
Thanks Sean, how did you get on with it?
Outstanding.
it will now stand as the definitive refutation against those who say an extended papal vacancy destroys the visibility of the Catholic Church.
Well done indeed!
Thank you! I'm looking forward to dripping it out this week and following.
Just want to say that while immersed in an FSSP community I was minding my own business reading the Roman Catechism [Council of Trent] on unity, and was able to draw these conclusions on my own from the text: that the unity of the church is primarily based on unity of faith and that this would have to mean external profession; unity of sacraments and government (not that we have it!) would necessarily be based on the unity of faith.
This was so explicit it surprised me to realize both the perfect logic and the clarity that already exists. In my surprise I was trying to explain this to my husband; we wondered if this overlapped with the articles of the Apostles Creed (can we agree on the Apostles Creed, people?!). I ran through it in my mind, then exclaimed “I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH. They redefined the meaning of Holy Catholic Church!!”
I’m just saying: we appreciate the footnotes: of course! Necessary. But want to suggest that a normal old lady can realize that the “Church” isn’t the Church because they have changed the sense of the terms and have lost the unity of Faith.
I have not yet had the opportunity to read the full article, sadly. However, since we were invited to do so, here are two (very) minor typographical corrections:
(1) what precedes footnote 28 should read "and only 10% said that it should be ILLEGAL in all cases."
(2) In footnote 4, I believe you meant to write "[...] WM Review in 2021," not "WM Review 2021."
Thank you Pedro! Will get then fixed tomorrow.
Thanks for this excellent book. I have but one suggestion: that the chapters and chapter headings in the contents be hyperlinked to their location in the text so that it might be swiftly navigated by readers and those referring back to it in online discussions.
I hope you are interviewed by many more media sources on this topic. May God continue to bless your work. I will send up some prayers in thanksgiving for it.