Integrity Magazine Interview: No Pope since Vatican II? The 'Extended Vacancy' of the Chair of St Peter
In this interview with Stephen Kokx from Integrity, we discussed 'abductive logic', and an extended vacancy as the best explanation for the crisis in the Church.
In this interview with Stephen Kokx from Integrity, we discussed ‘abductive logic’, and an extended vacancy as the best explanation for the crisis in the Church.
(WM Round-Up) – On Wednesday 15 July 2026, I appeared on Integrity Magazine’s podcast with Stephen Kokx to continue our new series about the indefectibility of the Church, and my long article ‘Spotless and Unsullied’ – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy.
The conversation focused on Chapter III: Indefectibility and an Extended Vacancy.
Spotless and Unsullied is the third part of my response to Fr Thomas Crean OP’s article The Perpetual Visibility of the Catholic Church Under the Pope.
Much of what Fr Crean writes about indefectibility in this article is correct; however, it overlooks or obscures extra elements of this attribute of the Church, and this allows him to use it in an argument against “sedevacantism.”
Topics in this interview included:
Abductive reasoning as a means of reaching an explanation
The criteria of abductive reasoning
The ‘epistemology of the crisis’, and docility to one’s teachers
What indefectibility does not prevent: A falling away, and an extended vacancy
The effect of an extended vacancy.
We did not get to the topic of the possibility of an extended vacancy, which we will pick up in the next interview.
Clarification: I misspoke, stating that Alexander Poe did not read The WM Review, and that this encouragingly showed that his recent video on the same subject was the fruit of his own independent work and research. In fact, I meant that he had not read Spotless and Unsullied, and he was kind enough to say in the comments on YouTube:
Thank you for the shoutout, gentlemen!
To clarify, I am familiar with Sean’s work and I greatly admire it. He’s one of the few people I subscribe to on Substack. So, I have certainly read the WM Review— just not this particular piece yet!
God bless you both. Great show.
We will be releasing Chapter III of Spotless and Unsullied for all readers next week. But you can read it NOW in the book-length article discussed here:
Spotless and Unsullied – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy
(NB: It is not necessary to have read Radically Insufficient or Zero Marks before reading Spotless and Unsullied.)
Other parts in the Zero Marks series:
‘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)
Introduction, and Chapter I: Unity
Chapter II: Holiness
Chapter III: Catholicity
Chapter IV: Apostolicity as a Mark
Chapter V: Apostolicity as a Property
Conclusion: ‘Hovel in the Valley’
Spotless and Unsullied – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy (Part III)
See also:
The previous interviews
This interview was a follow up to our previous conversations of the other parts of my response to Fr Crean.
Here is the first interview, on the visibility of the Church (Part I):
Here is the second, on the property of unity (Part II, Ch. 1):
Here is the third, on the property of holiness (Part II, Ch. II):
Here is the fourth, on the property of catholicity (Part II, Ch. III):
Here is the fifth, on the note of apostolicity (Part II, Ch. IV):
Here is the sixth, on the property of apostolicity (Part II, Ch. V):
Here is the seventh, on the conclusion to Zero Marks:
Here is the eighth, on the first chapter of Spotless and Unsullied:
Here is the ninth, on the second chapter of Spotless and Unsullied:
Thank you to Stephen for having me on again. I hope readers of The WM Review enjoy it – and give Kokx News a follow too.
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)
What is interesting to me is that deductive logic, inductive logic, and abductive logic all converge to point toward an extended vacancy:
Deductive logic does it through the syllogism (i.e., Major: Public heretics are not members of the Catholic Church. Minor: But Francis is a public heretic. Conclusion: Therefore Francis is not a member of the Catholic Church);
Inductive logic does it through the accumulation of particular indications or pieces of evidence that point toward a conclusion with such a high probability of likelihood that to ignore or discard that conclusion becomes unreasonable. So for example, public heresy, evil rites, dubious canonizations, conclave irregularities, etc., etc. Add another 25-50 more, and the conclusion that these claimants are illegitimate becomes rather easy to sustain.
Abductive logic does it by observing a particular fact, and inferring the most likely explanation (e.g., the lawn is wet. It must have rained last might. Or more to our point, keeping in mind that ALL classical theologians of note considered it obvious that a true pope could not be a public heretic: Leo XIV rejects the death penalty. He must not be a true pope. Etc., etc.
Although it is true that only deductive logic yields infallible certainty (presuming the premises are correct!), whereas inductive and abductive deal in high probabilities, the fact that all three can be utilized in forming convincing arguments regarding a papal vacancy rather tends to amplify the persuasiveness of all three methods.
Of course, disposition is always the primary obex to the reception of truth. So long as a man thinks that if he assents to a particular proposition, he is endangering his faith, because he cannot understand, for example, how admitting an extended vacancy leaves visibility, apostolicity, indefectibility, etc. intact, then he will feel compelled a priori to reject that conclusion until such time as he has acquired the doctrinal understanding to conquer his misplaced fears, allowing him to see that in fact there are persuasive and satisfying arguments which will replace his fear with confidence in admitting that conclusion.
Helping souls overcome those fears is, as I see it, precisely the WM Review vocation (and you're doing a superlative job accomplishing it). Thank you for what you do.