'Spotless and Unsullied' – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy
The follow-up to Zero Marks – the next part in our mammoth response to Fr Thomas Crean OP's attempted refutation of 'sedevacantism' – is here, addressing his treatment of indefectibility.
The follow-up to Zero Marks – the next part in our mammoth response to Fr Thomas Crean OP’s attempted refutation of ‘sedevacantism’ – is here, addressing his treatment of indefectibility.
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 Peter Kwasniewski’s Tradition and Sanity 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.
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.
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.
I have also discussed each of these chapters of Part II, as well as Part I, with Stephen Kokx on YouTube with Kokx News 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
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.)