Have we ignored apostolicity of government/succession and over-focused on that of doctrine?
Such is an allegation made against 'sedevacantists' in general, and The WM Review in particular.
Are ‘sedevacantists’ and The WM Review avoiding the issue of apostolicity of government?
Introduction
This is a short post responding to an accusation against “sedevacantists” and myself personally.
It has been alleged that “sedevacantists” in general place a significantly exaggerated focus on apostolicity of doctrine, whilst overlooking apostolicity of government/succession. While I have typically referred to this aspect of apostolicity as that of succession, both terms refer to the same reality (although “government” is often addressed in the context of the note/property of unity).
It has further been alleged that, in my article ‘Radically insufficient’ I am an example of this, referring to Van Noort on the apostolicity of doctrine, whilst “ignoring” his teaching on the latter.
Unfortunately there seem to be problems of both insufficient reading and of reading comprehension behind this allegation.
The article in question
First, the article in question was not about apostolicity, but rather about the visibility of the Church in general. It was setting the ground for the subsequent article ‘Zero Marks’; this article addresses apostolicity of succession/government, doctrine, and origin in detail in Chapters IV and V. I have just recorded an interview with Stephen Kokx about Chapter IV. You can find Zero Marks here.
Returning to ‘Radically Insufficient’, the article in question. The article referred to apostolicty in my presentation of criteria by which the four properties of the Creed – by which the Church is rendered “distinctly visible” – are to be considered as notes or marks. The fourth criterion of a note is that it is “easily knowable”, and the reference to apostolicity was an illustration of this point. I wrote:
“For example, ‘teaching the same doctrine as the apostles’ is not easily knowable, as it requires study and cannot be verified without the testimony of the Church. Therefore this real aspect of apostolicity as a property is not usually treated as part of apostolicity as a mark.”
Further, fn. 20 of the same article deals directly with the question of formal apostolic succession.
In an interview with Stephen Kokx on this same article, I said the following:
“[Notes] have to be more known to us than the Church herself. What this is saying is we can’t beg the question. We argue from from what’s more certain in order to establish what’s less [certain]. So with Catholicity, for example, one aspect of Catholicity is a widespread diffusion. It’s easier for a person to look around and see a organisation that is diffused widely, or is diffused in the way that’s relevant for the question, than it is to know that it has the right to be diffused widely. And that’s the opposition between Catholicity of fact and Catholicity of law.
“Closely related to this is [that a note has] to be easily knowable […]
So in order to know that the Primacy is a necessary part of the Church’s constitution, you have to have done some study. You have to have weaved through some of the the arguments and so on; and it’s definitely possible to do, but it’s not necessarily available for the “simplest” people. And this is the point of it: it has to be – as Fr Crean says – “the city on the hill”; it’s the place where “fools won’t err.” That’s the point of it.
“Similar things that wouldn’t work in that way [include] the continuity with the doctrine of the apostles; if you can establish that, you’ve got some some proof that you can work with, but it’s not a note per se.”
In other words, the article ‘Radically Insufficient’ (and its associated interview) which has been used as the basis for alleging an excessive focus on apostolicity of doctrine, to the detriment of that of government/succession, specifically states that apostolicity of doctrine (and, I may add, of origin) does not properly form a part of the note of apostolicity – and that that of succession/government does.
So much for that.
Beyond the article in question
Many “sedevacantist”, including myself, have written a great deal on this topic in other places. For example, in addition to ‘Zero Marks’, these set out my current thoughts on the matter:
These below articles, written at earlier stages, set out similar ideas – albeit with more certainty than I currently enjoy:
The duty for laymen to study and spread the faith—Pope Leo XIII (Apr 2022)
The Apostolicity of the Church – Who are the Successors of the Apostles? (Apr 2023)
The Apostolicity of the Church – What is ordinary jurisdiction? (Apr 2023)
The Apostolicity of the Church – The source of ordinary jurisdiction (Jun 2023)
The Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Catholic Church—it lacks the necessary marks (Apr 2024)
Setting the record straight with Avoiding Babylon (Sep 2025)
Bishop Sanborn was asked about The WM Review’s position – our answer to his comments (Oct 2025)
We have also published material from other authors touching on the same subject, and/or with our own comments relating to it:
A Note for Confused Catholics: Apologetics and Dogmatic Theology (Sep 2022 – contributor)
How is the pope the source of jurisdiction? Mgr Fenton explains (Oct 2024 – commentary)
Who can elect a Pope? (Fr Ricossa) (Mar 2026 – a few comments made in the endnotes)
I also sourced, translated and published the very difficult to find comments from Archbishop Lefebvre on the four marks, including that of apostolicity:
The text from Archbishop Lefebvre is very interesting; nonetheless, my comments noted the very deficiency for which I have been reproached:
“While Lefebvre’s treatment of the four marks is powerful and instructive, some aspects are wanting: as with many Catholics after Vatican II, he under-appreciates the importance of apostolicity of government – speaking as if it can be compensated by apostolicity of doctrine. This is not the case, as we have discussed elsewhere.”
Further, Lefebvre himself is quoted by his biographer, the late Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, as having stated:
“The current state of the papacy renders insignificant the difficulties over jurisdiction, disobedience and apostolicity, because these notions suppose the reign of a Pope [who is] Catholic in his faith and government.”1
While understanding what Lefebvre means, and to a degree being sympathetic to it, it remains a fact that “sedevacantists” have not considered these “difficulties” to be insignificant, and have grappled with them from the earliest days after the Vatican II. Mgr Guérard des Lauriers’ “Thesis of Cassiciacum” exists, in significant part, to engage with them. From a different perspective, Fr Gabriel Lavery has addressed the topic in a 2024 conference – albeit one which he described as “still very far from being a completed talk”. Even if one disagrees with such theses, one can hardly say that “sedevacantists” ignore the issue.
Conclusion: Counter-allegations
In short, the allegation in question is false, unfounded, and vexatious. But to close, I offer some counter-allegations.
There are those who place too much emphasis on what they understand of apostolicity of government/succession, to the exclusion of apostolicity of doctrine and origin, as discussed in ‘Zero Marks’ Ch. V.
They place too much emphasis on material succession, in that they do not give an adequate account of what would render this succession formal, or prevent it from being such, as discussed in ‘Zero Marks’ Ch. IV and other articles linked above.
They place too much emphasis on apostolicity (understood in their reductive way) at the expense of the other three marks/properties, as discussed in ‘Zero Marks’ Ch. I-III.
They ignore the implications of the radical rupture in apostolicity of doctrine and origin, as well as the absence of the other marks/properties of the Church, and fail to draw the necessary conclusions, as discussed in ‘Zero Marks’ throughout.
The result of the above points is that they also place too much emphasis on formal visibility, at the expense of distinct visibility; in other words, they reduce the visibility of the Church to that of a mere legal structure without regard to the essential properties of the Church, as discussed in ‘Radically Insufficient’.
Another result is that they underestimate the scale of the problem that both apostolicity and visibility pose to their own positions; they take refuge in “rethought” conceptions of both, presenting them as existing for their own sake, and stripped of their inherent teleology – which is a denial of Catholic doctrine and theology.
The argument that the Conciliar/Synodal Church lacks apostolicity of doctrine and origin, as well as key aspects of the other three properties/notes, cannot be indirectly rebutted by a claim that the Conciliar/Synodal Church enjoys apostolic succession, or by a complaint that “sedevacantists” have ignored a single aspect of one of the properties/notes – even if this latter complaint was not simply false.
It is difficult to understand how anyone could think otherwise.
Read Next:
‘Radically insufficient’ – Reply to Fr Crean on the Church’s visibility, Part I
‘Zero Marks’ – Why the Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Catholic Church (Reply to Fr Thomas Crean) (All chapters and conclusion)
Disunited in Faith: Why the Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church (‘Zero Marks’ Ch. I)
‘Comprehensive Rejection’: Is the Conciliar/Synodal Church visibly holy? (‘Zero Marks’, Ch. II)
Is the Conciliar/Synodal Church Catholic? (’Zero Marks’, Ch. III)
Supplementary material to Zero Marks:
‘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
How do you tell the true Church after a rupture? Journet’s answer
Ongoing interviews with Stephen Kokx at Kokx News on Zero Marks:
The Unity of the Church and ‘Zero Marks’ – WM Review on Kokx News
WATCH: The Holiness of the Church and ‘Zero Marks’ – WM Review on Kokx News
WATCH: The Catholicity of the Church and ‘Zero Marks’ – WM Review on Kokx News
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
Twitter (The WM Review)
Quoted by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais in an interview published in the French magazine of the Society of Saint Pius X, Fideliter, (n. 123, pp. 25-29. May-June 1998), marking the tenth anniversary of the episcopal consecrations of June 1988.
In this text, the Archbishop continues, making clear that, whatever is the solution to the arguments from non-membership, he regarded it as clear John Paul II (at least) was not a Catholic:
“Without entering into consideration of the consequences of an heretical, schismatic or non-existent Pope, which would lead to interminable theoretical discussions, in conscience could we not and ought we not, after the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law which clearly affirms the new Church, and after his scandalous declarations concerning Luther, now to affirm that Pope John Paul II is not Catholic? We say no more, but we say no less. We had waited for the measure to become full, and it is so henceforth.”
I think we need to look at the conciliar sect's claim to Apostolicity of government. It is certainly in a crisis of authority, indeed the Catholic Church herself has been in the same crisis prior to the existence of the conciliar sect with John XXIII. Paul VI created brand new structures of bureaucracy. Is there continuity of government, or is this restricted to the Eastern Rites?
Interestingly (and perhaps obviously), if it is true that the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church, then its putative hierarchy would be in the same position as the schismatic Orthodox bishops, possessing mere material apostolicity (ie., episcopal continuity), but not formal apostolicity (which adds to episcopal continuity jurisdiction).
I find that ironic, since this is the charge the conciliarists level at trad bishops.