Is the Conciliar/Synodal Church Catholic? ('Zero Marks', Ch. III)
How is the Church 'catholic', and how does her visibility depend on this catholicity?
How is the Church ‘catholic’, and how does her visibility depend on this catholicity?
Author’s Notes
The following is Chapter III of my “book”, ‘Zero Marks’ – Why the Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Catholic Church, Part II of my 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.”
Peter Kwasniewski described Fr Crean’s article as “a definitive rebuttal of sedevacantism, at the level of first principles.”
Zero Marks is very long and detailed (over 30,000 words). The WM Review has published it in full first for WM+ members, and is releasing each of the five chapters separately for all readers.
This second chapter deals with the property and note of catholicity (or universality).
It covers the following topics:
What is catholicity?
How the property of catholicity could be lacking
The Eastern Schismatics
Rejection of evangelisation with the euphemism of ‘proselytism’
Treatment of false sects as legitimate
What this means for the catholicity of the Church
‘No mission to the Jews’
The prevalence of these ideas in the Conciliar/Synodal Church
Conclusions on the property of catholicity
I discussed this chapter with Stephen Kokx over at Kokx News:
For Part I of this response, see below:
For the Introduction to Zero Marks, and the other chapters, see the full piece here:
Before proceeding, I σηαλλ again restate my definition of the Conciliar/Synodal Church, my thesis, and a necessary clarification:
Definition: By “Conciliar/Synodal Church,” I mean the body of men who recognise Leo XIV as their Pope and spiritual leader, claim to be subject to him, and whom he (and his officers) recognise as being in good standing with him.
Thesis: The Conciliar/Synodal Church, considered as such, is not the Roman Catholic Church.
Clarification: By “not the Roman Catholic Church”, I mean that this body of men, considered as such, is not identical with the Roman Catholic Church. Taken as defined, it is a body composed of both Catholics and non-Catholics and lacks certain essential properties of the Roman Catholic Church; for this reason, it cannot be identified with that Church. The thesis therefore concerns the identity and nature of the body itself, considered as a social reality or accidental aggregation, rather than the status of the individuals within it. It does not deny the continued visibility of the Catholic Church; rather, it denies that this visibility, and membership of the Church, are determined by the boundaries of the Conciliar/Synodal Church as defined. Accordingly, it does not imply a) that this body constitutes a false sect (since it is an accidental aggregation of Catholics and non-Catholics, rather than a true society); b) that no Catholics exist within it; or c) that a man ceases to be a Catholic simply by being included in this body. Some of these points are clarified in Zero Marks, or will be clarified further elsewhere.
Chapter IV – the first of two parts on apostolicity, this time on apostolicity as a note – will be released after Holy Week.
If you want to make sure you receive these instalments, hit subscribe now – and if you can’t wait until after Holy Week, sign up as a WM+ member and get it all today:
‘ZERO MARKS’ – WHY THE CONCILIAR/SYNODAL CHURCH IS NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
By S.D. Wright
Part I: ‘Radically insufficient’ – Reply to Fr Crean on the Church’s visibility
Part II: ‘Zero Marks’ – Why the Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Catholic Church
Chapter III: Catholicity
What is catholicity?
Catholicity means universality. Theologians distinguish this into catholicity “de jure” (of right) and “de facto” (of fact).
Catholicity de jure means that she is “destined for the salvation of all men, and therefore endowed with the ability to spread to all parts of the world to fulfil that mission.”1 But this “destiny” and “ability” are internal properties that are at least difficult to observe, and so do not constitute the mark of catholicity.
Catholicity is a note insofar as it is catholicity de facto, or of fact.
Catholicity can be distinguished in further ways, but we are presently interested in this catholicity of fact – namely an “actual large number of members of the Church everywhere morally, simultaneous and perpetual.”2 Cardinal Billot also writes
“[C]atholicity regards not only the universality of place, but also the universality of time – from the Ascension of Christ and the descent of the Holy Spirit – and immediately there comes to mind the unwelcome question: where on earth was Protestantism for fourteen centuries, down to Luther?”3
Berry states that actual catholicity requires not only that a society have “members scattered far and wide throughout the world”, but also that “the Church itself, as a society, must always exist in the various parts of the world (“simultaneous catholicity”) to exercise its authority and carry on the mission of Christ.”4
It is not necessary that it be the biggest religious society in the world.5 Cardinal Billot writes:
“For does number taken materially bear anything divine in itself? Certainly the Catholic Church appears to surpass every other religion existing in the world with respect to the number of her faithful; but, considering number absolutely, she is neither shown to be divine from a preponderance of number, nor would she be shown not to be divine from an inferiority of number. Furthermore, if it were a question of number alone, since Buddhism closely approaches her with respect to multitude, the latter would also approach her with respect to credibility—which God forbid.
“For this reason it was pointedly stated that simultaneous catholicity consists in a vast number drawn from a multitude of nations.”6
While it is generally considered that the Church could not become limited to just one country,7 both theology and history show that multiple nations can fall away from the Church,8 and that whole nations may find themselves deprived of its hierarchy (cf. as happened in England and Japan at various points in history). The heart of the note of Catholicity is an actual and simultaneous diffusion of members throughout many nations.9
As a note, an actual diffusion (de facto) is more known and knowable than the “de jure” right and aptitude for such diffusion. This note of catholicity may be accidentally obscured in the following ways:
A significant reduction of the number of Catholics in the world
A reduction of the number of nations in which these Catholics are spread
A difficulty in locating the true hierarchy of the Church, or verifying her diffusion.
In particular, theologians have recognised that this catholicity will be greatly restricted towards the end of the world. Fr Timoteo Zapalena explained:
“[I]f at the end of the world apostasy of such a kind actually were to be the case in most men, it would be necessary to think of catholicity in such a manner that it must be understood in a very restricted sense as a stage immediately and very shortly preceding the consummation of the world. However, the difficulty relates to the end of the world, not the existence of the Church throughout the ages, about which we especially speak in this thesis.”10
Cardinal Pie also noted that the Church’s catholicity could be “increasingly reduced” at the end of the world:
“The Church, a society that will undoubtedly always be visible, will be increasingly reduced to simply individual and domestic proportions. She, who said in her early days, ‘The place is too small for me, make room for me to dwell,’ Angustus mihi locus, fac spatium ut habitem, will find herself fighting for ground inch by inch, surrounded and hemmed in on all sides: as much as the centuries had made her great, so much will be done to restrict her.”11
Cardinal Journet also noted, without regard for the end of the world, that the schisms could leave the true Church with an obscured catholicity:
“[I]t was not altogether impossible for the dissidents at a given moment to be more numerous than the faithful. […]
Geographical and numerical universality, the quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, will often be a fully sufficient criterion to mark the true Church and distinguish her from schism. […] However, because the true Church is mysterious in her essence and in the mode of her diffusion, it may happen in other circumstances—likely to become more and more common nowadays when errors, like truths, make the circuit of the world in a moment and insinuate themselves everywhere—that the criterion of universality will remain ambiguous, and must then be supplemented by other criteria – including the four notes of the Church, and, as he says, the “faith of our fathers” and (legitimate) succession to the papacy.”12
Cardinal Billot considers St Robert Bellarmine’s opinion – that the Church could be restricted to a single nation, so long as “one could clearly see that this Church identifies itself with the one that was spread at another moment throughout the whole world” – and his rejection of this idea contains a number of instructive points:
“From these considerations, I repeat, it is best to prescind, because if there were any foundation whatsoever for such an opinion, it would assuredly be nothing other than what is read concerning the end of the world and the persecution of Antichrist (Luke XVIII, 8; Matthew XXIV, 21–29; 2 Thessalonians II, etc.).
“Now, even granting the interpretation which Bellarmine appears to have followed, the conclusion would still remain intact, because it would still be true that simultaneous catholicity is, by the will and promise of God, a necessary endowment of the Church, at least according to the ordinary law, which would in no way be prejudiced by a foretold exception, for a certain determinate period of time.
“For in moral matters, each thing is denominated absolutely from those characteristics which ordinarily affect it or ought to affect it.”13
It is not necessary for us to take a position on whether we are currently in the end times: the principles which Billot states are sufficiently applicable to our time even without that being the case.
Now, it is undeniable that the Conciliar/Synodal Church is indeed diffused very widely throughout the world, both in its members and in its structures. But is it catholic, in the sense under discussion?
However, let us return to our distinction between that which is difficult to verify and that which is verified to be absent.
How the property of catholicity could be lacking
The property of catholicity would be verified to be absent when de jure catholicity is rejected and disclaimed – as when evangelisation is rejected as a sin, or when groups of humanity are told that they need not enter the Church, or treated as such.
But this is precisely what the Conciliar/Synodal Church has done. Its officers have repeatedly dismissed or even rejected evangelisation under the name of “proselytism,” denied that whole groups are required to enter the Church, and its missionary orders and impetus collapsed following Vatican II.
This latter point cannot be disputed. Eric Sammons even published a book titled Deadly Indifference, with the blasphemous subtitle: How the Church Lost Her Mission, and How We Can Reclaim It. Sammons defines the Church’s mission as being the salvation of souls, achieved through conversion to the Catholic faith.14 He links this mission specifically to the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation, and considers it to have been “lost” because the dogma itself has been denied by so many. He even cites Benedict XVI as evidence of this:
“If it is true that the great missionaries of the 16th century were still convinced that those who are not baptized are forever lost — and this explains their missionary commitment — in the Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council that conviction was finally abandoned.”15
Benedict XVI continues:
“From this came a deep double crisis. On the one hand this seems to remove any motivation for a future missionary commitment. Why should one try to convince the people to accept the Christian faith when they can be saved even without it?
“But also for Christians an issue emerged: the obligatory nature of the faith and its way of life began to seem uncertain and problematic. If there are those who can save themselves in other ways, it is not clear, in the final analysis, why the Christian himself is bound by the requirements of the Christian faith and its morals. If faith and salvation are no longer interdependent, faith itself becomes unmotivated.”16
While he explores some possible solutions – the wholly unacceptable theories of Rahner and de Lubac – Ratzinger provides no answer to his question. What was abandoned was not just the necessity for baptism, but the claim to catholicity de jure – and as such, no answer is possible.
In this chapter, we will consider how the Conciliar/Synodal Church has disclaimed catholicity de jure, and thus is visibly not the Catholic Church.
The Eastern Schismatics
In 1993, the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church issued the “Balamand Declaration,” which was also published by the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity.17
This document, which treats the existence of Eastern Catholic “Uniate” Churches as a problem, speaks with truly stunning audacity of “passing beyond the outdated ecclesiology of return to the Catholic Church.”18
Here is how it describes the missionary activity of the Catholic Church:
“Progressively, in the decades which followed these unions, missionary activity tended to include among its priorities the effort to convert other Christians, individually or in groups, so as ‘to bring them back’ to one’s own Church. In order to legitimize this tendency, a source of proselytism, the Catholic Church developed the theological vision according to which she presented herself as the only one to whom salvation was entrusted.”19
Its “practical rules” forbid “proselytism”:
“Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Oriental, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox. It aims at answering the spiritual needs of its own faithful and it has no desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church.”20
Towards the end, the document again refers to missionary activity as “proselytism”, and insinuates again that it was based on a “desire for expansion”:
“… excluding for the future all proselytism and all desire for expansion by Catholics at the expense of the Orthodox Church…”
The Declaration is clear: this approach has been abandoned, and replaced with one in which the evangelisation of Eastern schismatics “can no longer be accepted”:
“Because of the way in which Catholics and Orthodox once again consider each other in their relationship to the mystery of the Church and discover each other once again as Sister Churches, this form of ‘missionary apostolate’ described above, and which has been called ‘uniatism’, can no longer be accepted either as a method to be followed nor as a model of the unity our Churches are seeking.”21
Further, as the document itself makes clear, the Conciliar/Synodal hierarchy has taught the same ideas:
“Towards this end, Pope Paul VI affirmed in his address at the Phanar in July 1967:
“‘It is on the heads of the Churches, of their hierarchy, that the obligation rests to guide the Churches along the way that leads to finding full communion again. They ought to do this by recognizing and respecting each other as pastors of that part of the flock of Christ entrusted to them, by taking care for the cohesion and growth of the people of God, and avoiding everything that could scatter it or cause confusion in its ranks” (Tomos Agapis, n. 172).
“In this spirit Pope John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios I together stated clearly:
“‘We reject every form of proselytism, every attitude which would be or could be perceived to be a lack of respect’ (December 7th, 1987).”22
Leo XIV himself cited Benedict XVI and Francis in support of the same idea at the Extraordinary Consistory in January 2026:
“The Church does not engage in proselytism. Instead, she grows by ‘attraction’: just as Christ ‘draws all to himself’ by the power of his love, culminating in the sacrifice of the Cross, so the Church fulfils her mission to the extent that, in union with Christ, she accomplishes every one of her works in spiritual and practical imitation of the love of her Lord.” Pope Francis was in perfect agreement with this, and repeated it several times in different contexts.23
Rejection of evangelisation with the euphemism of ‘proselytism’
But what is “proselytism”? Those who try to defend these texts introduce a distinction between “evangelisation” and “proselytism”, with the former being positive and the latter negative, characterised by coercion or undue motives. They point to provisions in this very text such as the following:
“Religious freedom would be violated when, under the cover of financial assistance, the faithful of one Church would be attracted to the other, by promises, for example, of education and material benefits that may be lacking in their own Church.”24
However, this is a distraction – and those who defend this document with such distinctions are simply carrying water for those destroying the Church. The tenor of the document – and of the post-conciliar magisterium – is that the Church’s missionary activity itself – the seeking of converts, the preaching of the necessity of the Church for salvation – is itself proselytism, and rooted in what it calls “triumphalism”, empire-building, the exploitation of the poor, and a lack of respect for the alleged rights of the Eastern sects.
The late Francis also clearly conveyed that he did not consider “proselytism” in the narrow sense of his conservative defenders. In 2016, he equated it with trying to convince another of the truth of the Catholic religion:
“What must I say to convince them?” Listen, the last thing you must do is to “speak.” You have to live as a Christian, like a Christian: convinced, forgiven, and on a path. It is not licit to convince them of your faith; proselytism is the strongest poison against the ecumenical path.”25
Treatment of false sects as legitimate
The document provides its rationale as to why “prosletyism” must be abandoned. It explicitly teaches that the schismatic “hierarchs” enjoy a divine mandate, which it does not distinguish from that of the Catholic Church:
“Bishops and priests have the duty before God to respect the authority which the Holy Spirit has given to the bishops and priests of the other Church and for that reason to avoid interfering in the spiritual life of the faithful of that Church.”26
It recognises the Eastern sects as “Sister Churches”, openly referring to “the two Churches” on several occasions, and using similar language throughout.27 All this, aside from being a tacit denial of both the unicity and unity of the Church, conveys again the idea that they enjoy a divine mandate and legitimacy:
“It is in this perspective that the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognize each other as Sister Churches, responsible together for maintaining the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose, most especially in what concerns unity. […]”28
What this means for the catholicity of the Church
There are three consequences of this idea for the de jure catholicity of the Church, which the document itself draws out for us.
The first is that the document presumes to restrict the liberty of the Catholic Church by stating that neither she, nor the Eastern sects, should involve themselves with “the faithful of other churches, without previous consultation with the pastors of these Churches.”29 Later on, the document states that:
“[…] Catholic and Orthodox bishops of the same territory consult with each other before establishing Catholic pastoral projects which imply the creation of new structures in regions which traditionally form part of the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church, in view to avoid parallel pastoral activities which would risk rapidly degenerating into rivalry or even conflicts.”30
The second is that the Catholic Church is not the sole legitimate source of Christ’s teaching, government and sanctification. Rooting itself in the Second Vatican Council, the document acknowledges that this mission is the “property” of both “Churches”:
“In fact, especially since the panorthodox Conferences and the Second Vatican Council, the re-discovery and the giving again of proper value to the Church as communion, both on the part of Orthodox and of Catholics, has radically altered perspectives and thus attitudes. On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to his Church – profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops – cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches.”31
The third is a denial of the necessity of the Church for salvation, and the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation. This is implicit throughout, and made explicit here:
“While the inviolable freedom of persons and their obligation to follow the requirements of their conscience remain secure, in the search for re-establishing unity there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation.”32
Paragraph 25 also states that “every form of pressure, of any kind whatsoever” must be excluded – which, we are obliged to assume, includes any mention of the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.
It does not matter that the document only “strongly recommends that these practical rules be put into practice.”33 The point is not whether they are put into practice, but that this document represents a rejection of the Church’s catholicity de jure – as well, we should note, as a clear denial of dogma by those who wrote it.
Pope Felix III expressed the principle that “silence implies consent” – in other words, if one is silent in the face of doctrinal error, one is presumed to accept it:
“An error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed… He who does not oppose an evident crime is open to the suspicion of secret complicity.”34
This is simply a principle of reason. However, the hierarchy of the Conciliar/Synodal Church has not been silent about it: they have praised it, and endorsed its ideas in their teaching – and it was explicitly praised by John Paul II in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint.35
‘No mission to the Jews’
A similar situation applies to the Jews.
The Vatican’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, in its document The Gifts and the Calling of God are Irrevocable, correctly states that “[t]here cannot be two ways of salvation”, because “Christ is also the Redeemer of the Jews in addition to the Gentiles.”36
However, it immediately states that this “is not a matter of missionary efforts to convert Jews, but rather the expectation that the Lord will bring about the hour when we will all be united.”37 This appears to be a clear statement that the Catholic Church is not necessary for Jews.
The document further clarifies:
“It is easy to understand that the so-called ‘mission to the Jews’ is a very delicate and sensitive matter for Jews because, in their eyes, it involves the very existence of the Jewish people. This question also proves to be awkward for Christians, because for them the universal salvific significance of Jesus Christ and consequently the universal mission of the Church are of fundamental importance.
“The Church is therefore obliged to view evangelisation to Jews, who believe in the one God, in a different manner from that to people of other religions and world views. In concrete terms this means that the Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews. While there is a principled rejection of an institutional Jewish mission, Christians are nonetheless called to bear witness to their faith in Jesus Christ also to Jews, although they should do so in a humble and sensitive manner, acknowledging that Jews are bearers of God’s Word, and particularly in view of the great tragedy of the Shoah.”38
It continues, again denigrating the Church’s missionary activity, and equating it a quasi-pelagian attempt to save souls without God:
“Christians must put their trust in God, who will carry out his universal plan of salvation in ways that only he knows, for they are witnesses to Christ, but they do not themselves have to implement the salvation of humankind. Zeal for the ‘house of the Lord’ and confident trust in the victorious deeds of God belong together. Christian mission means that all Christians, in community with the Church, confess and proclaim the historical realisation of God’s universal will for salvation in Christ Jesus (cf. “Ad gentes”, 7). They experience his sacramental presence in the liturgy and make it tangible in their service to others, especially those in need.”39
It also makes clear that the purposes of the dialogue are:
“[T]o add depth to the reciprocal knowledge of Jews and Christians”40
“[J]oint engagement throughout the world” for social justice issues41
“[J]ointly combatting all manifestation of racial discrimination against Jews and all forms of anti-semitism.”42
“Conversion to Jesus Christ and to the Catholic religion” does not appear in this list. As such, the “dialogue” which replaces a mission to the Jews cannot be described as an alternative form of evangelisation – and any infrequent references to the need for Jews to convert simply provide contradictory evidence, rather than resolving the question.
The prevalence of these ideas in the Conciliar/Synodal Church
Directly related to the catholicity of the Church is the concept that Jews may be saved by virtue of either the Abrahamic or Mosaic covenant – which, it is alleged, has not been revoked.
In 1980, John Paul II referred to the Jewish people as “the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God.”43
As with the Balamand Declaration, these ideas about the Jews are not limited to one document, but are current throughout the Conciliar/Synodal milieu. In 2018 – following his resignation – Benedict XVI wrote the following in Communio:
“[T]he Great Commission is universal – with one exception: A mission of the Jews was therefore not envisaged and not necessary simply because they alone among all peoples knew the ‘unknown God.’ For Israel, therefore, mission was not and is not valid, but dialogue about whether Jesus of Nazareth is ‘the Son of God, the Logos,’ for whom, according to the promises made to his people, Israel was and is waiting and, without knowing it, mankind as well.”44
In official letters written to Jewish authorities at the behest of Francis, Cardinal Kurt Koch, President of the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, said:
“The phrase ‘The law does not give life, it does not offer the fulfilment of the promise’ should not be extrapolated from its context, but must be considered within the overall framework of Pauline theology.
“The abiding Christian conviction is that Jesus Christ is the new way of salvation. However, this does not mean that the Torah is diminished or no longer recognized as the ‘way of salvation for Jews.’”45
Cardinal Jean-Marc Aveline – a member of the Dicastery for Interreligious Dialogue – has also expressed such ideas in great depth, attributing a “vocation” and “mission” to Rabbinic Judaism – and even suggesting, citing Cardinal Ratzinger, that the Church needs to be “purified” by Rabbinic Judaism, and that the latter has no reciprocal need from the Church.46
As one final example, Bishop Robert Barron stated the following to Ben Shapiro:
“[T]he Second Vatican Council says it very clearly. I mean, Christ is the privileged route to salvation. I mean, God so loved the world He gave His only Son that we might find eternal life. So that’s the privileged route. However, Vatican II clearly teaches that someone outside the Christian Faith can be saved.
“Now they’re saved through the grace of Christ, indirectly received. So, I mean, the grace is coming from Christ. But it might be received according to your conscience. So, if you’re following your conscience sincerely — or in your case, you’re following the commandments of the Law sincerely — yeah, you can be saved.
“Now that doesn’t conduce to a complete relativism. We still would say the privileged route, and the route that God has offered to humanity, is the route of His Son. But no, you can be saved.”47
He even adds that this applies also to “an atheist of good will.”
Many other such examples could be cited: the key message that they convey is that Jews do not strictly need to enter the Catholic Church.
Conclusions on the property of catholicity
As Fr Berry teaches, the Church’s catholicity de jure means that she alone is “destined for the salvation of all men, and therefore endowed with the ability to spread to all parts of the world to fulfil that mission.”48 It is, as Fr Salaverri said, “the power or right and office divinely given to the Church of gathering herself all men everywhere on earth.”49 This universality (or catholicity) is itself a crucial reason as to why the Church must be visible at all, as Fr Berry explains in that very context:
“[T]he only means established by Christ to teach His doctrines, to inculcate His moral precepts, to administer the Sacraments, and to regulate and direct divine worship. No one can practice the Christian religion otherwise than as Christ Himself has ordained; whoever would be His disciple and embrace His religion must submit to the authority of His Church, be taught and ruled by it, and receive through it all the means of salvation.”50
Treating any class of men, be they Eastern schismatics, or Jews, or simply those of any other religion, as if the Catholic Church is not necessary for them, and as if they are not obliged to enter her, is not just a denial of the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation; it is also a denial of this catholicity.
It is fruitless to wrangle over the level of authority involved in these documents: their claims are so abhorrent that the silence with which they are greeted (when not openly supported) is, as per Felix III, to be regarded as revealing the tacit approval by the leaders of this milieu. It is further reinforced by the sorry state of the missionary orders following Vatican II.51
As we reach the end of this part, I offer Fr Crean a choice of two conclusions.
The first possible conclusion is that the reasons and evidence produced have demonstrated that the Conciliar/Synodal Church has disclaimed catholicity de jure.
But a society whose officers have openly denied its catholicity de jure cannot be said to enjoy the necessary property of catholicity.
This is not saved by the undoubtedly wide diffusion of the Conciliar/Synodal Church’s members: it is possible, and recognised by theologians, that even a false sect may appear to enjoy a diffusion even greater than that of the Church;52 this is, in turn, why catholicity de facto is a negative mark. But when catholicity de jure is visibly absent – let alone when it is positively denied and abandoned – this diffusion is just a façade. The society in question is visibly not catholic, and so it is visibly not the Catholic Church.
The second possible conclusion is that, even if the reasons and evidence are not felt to demonstrate this renunciation of catholicity de jure, they certainly demonstrate that the Conciliar/Synodal Church has allowed the note of catholicity to be very significantly obscured, and to be very difficult to verify.
But, as we have already established, this note is one of four key means by which the Church is rendered visible – which would force Fr Crean to accept that the visibility of the Church can indeed be reduced, and thus legitimise at least in principle such arguments when they point to a different conclusion to his own.
At any rate, we can see that a third ground for Fr Crean’s claim that the Conciliar/Synodal Church is the “perpetually visible Church” is either refuted or significantly undermined.
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!
Read Next:
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
Twitter (The WM Review)
Berry, p. 125.
Salaverri, n. 1171
Berry, pp. 139-40. He also defines “simultaneous catholicity” as follows:
“SIMULTANEOUSLY CATHOLIC. The Church might have a successive existence in various parts of the world, dying out in one place as it springs up in another, until finally the Gospel would have been announced in all parts of the world. This would constitute successive catholicity, but it is evident that such universality is not sufficient, because at no time would the Church be really Catholic in any true sense of the word. Therefore, the Church must be simultaneously Catholic, i.e., it must be present throughout the whole world at one and the same time. It is true, of course, that the Church may cease to exist in this or that part of the world, but it must ever remain at least morally universal, as explained above.”
Berry, p. 73.
What does it mean to exist “as a society”? A society is an association of men, united in the pursuit of a common good. A perfect society is on which has all the means needed to achieve its end.
For a society like the Church, authority is necessary; and thus did Christ found her. However, such societies may sometimes be left without their chief authority, as is the case for every papal interregnum – during which, as St Antoninus says, papal authority “never dies, because it always remains in Christ, who rising again from the dead, dieth now no more.” At this time, the actual administration of the papal authority does indeed die, he says; and the power of electing remaining in the College of Cardinals (or those to whom this power may devolve).
“[I]f by the name of papacy we understand the election and determination of the person (which is the material thing in the papacy, as has been said before) then such power remains in the College after the death of the Pope. But if by the name of papal power we understand his authority and jurisdiction (which is the formal thing), then such power never dies, because it always remains in Christ, who rising again from the dead, dieth now no more. […]
“If, however, by the name of papal power we understand the actual administration, which is the material and formal thing in the papacy, then it is true that this actual administration dies with the death of the Pope, since the actual administration of the papal power does not remain in the College after the death of the Pope (except to the extent that it was entrusted to them by a decree of the predecessor), nor does it remain, in this manner, in Christ, because, according to the common law, Christ has not exercised such power, after His resurrection, except through the mediation of the Pope; for although He Himself is the door, He has nevertheless constituted Peter and his successors as the His porters, by whose mediation the door of access to Him is opened and closed.
“Wherefore St. Augustine, commenting on the words “all power is given to me in heaven and in earth ... and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” (Mat. 28), says that the Apostles, to whom Christ spoke, were not going to remain until the consummation of the world, but He spoke to them in the person of all those that would succeed them, as to a single body of the Church.
“The power of the Church therefore with regard to jurisdiction (which is, as it were, the formal thing in the papacy) does not die with the death of the Pope but persists in Christ. Nor does it die with regard to the election and determination of the person, (which is like the material element), but it persists in the College of Cardinals; it dies, however, with respect to its actual administration and jurisdiction, because after the death of the Pope, the Church is vacant and is deprived of the administration of such power.”
(Cited in Ricossa, p. xxv)
Similarly, parts of the society may be left without their particular subsidiary authority (e.g., the bishop of a diocese).
It is certainly the case that a papal and diocesan interregnum may coincide, such that a number of Catholics may be left without either the Pope or the diocesan bishop, and thus have no individual person who has episcopal jurisdiction over them.
Nonetheless, such Catholics may visibly remain a part of the society for as long they continue to be morally united with each other, and the society as a whole, in pursuit of the same common good – visibly manifested, for example, in their observance of the same laws promulgated by authority. Cardinal Billot makes this point in reference to a situation in which offices are vacant, or succession is doubtful:
“When one says that this succession has always lasted without ever being interrupted, one does not mean that no interval of time elapsed between the death of a pope and the election of his successor, nor that there is absolutely none in the whole genealogy whose legitimacy would be doubtful. One means that the pastors succeeded one another in such a way that their see never ceased to be occupied, even when it was vacant or when its incumbent was doubtful.
“In this way, the preceding government continued to exercise itself virtually through the rights of this see, which always remained in force and were always recognised, and the concern was always maintained to designate a successor with all certainty. It is in this sense that the succession was not interrupted: on condition of denying the interruption insofar as it is compatible with the material subject of the succession, and corresponds to a human mode of succession, in a government where the subject of the power is designated by an election, as Christ willed when He instituted His Church.”
Billot, p. 260.
Similarly, Salaverri refers to the unity of government perduring through the submission to officers of the illegitimate obediences:
1283. Actually, however, unity in faith and worship was evident. The unity of government was also present, because the legitimate Pontiff exercised the power of government:
By himself, as is clear, in the part of the faithful that was obedient to him;
Through his own delegates, in other parts of the faithful, which, given the common error then or the positive and probable doubt, obeyed others whom they thought to be legitimate. For, from the earliest antiquity this principle has been observed in the Church: In a common error or in a positive or probable doubt, the Church supplies jurisdiction (CIC 209 [1917]).[15] Therefore the true Sovereign Pontiff in those circumstances, by supplying jurisdiction, exercised his own proper power of government also through Pontiffs, Bishops and Priests of the other factions, as through his own delegates.
Fr Goupil also explains the same point, concluding “that the government of the predecessors virtually perseveres” in this way:
“Let us not forget that this formal and uninterrupted succession should be understood morally, and such is of the very nature of things where there is a succession of persons who are elected, as Christ wished and which has been practiced since times of ancient Christianity. This perpetuity does not require that there be no lapse of time between the death of a predecessor and the election of a successor; nor that in a series of such pastors there never be one who is dubious; but one understands by this a succession of legitimate pastors, such that the pastoral See, even when vacant, even when occupied by someone whose title is dubious, cannot really be thought to have ceased to exist.
“This is to say that the government of the predecessors virtually perseveres in the law of the See which remains always in force and always recognized; and that it will also always persevere in its solicitude for electing a successor.” (Cf. Antoine, De Eccl.) [Emphasis added.]
The permanence of the Church’s laws means, in effect, that her authority continues even when individuals have no legitimate pastor over them. They remain members of the same society of which they were parts prior to the simultaneous interregnum of the Holy See and their diocesan see.
It does not seem absurd to posit that such a simultaneous deprivation of both papal and episcopal authority could occur on a very wide scale, such that it becomes difficult (or morally impossible) for most persons to verify exactly where the legitimate authorities over other Catholics survive; if this would occur, it could very severely obscure the visibility of the Church, and would create a situation in which many men could cease to be members of the society, pursuing ends different to its common good – as has, of course, been the case on a dramatic scale since Vatican II. However, this would not destroy the visibility of the society where it continues without officers, nor where these officers remain.
In brief, the visibility of a society as a society does not absolutely depend on the visibility of its living office-holders, at least in the sense of their being visible to a great number of men.
I prescind here from the question of whether both the Pope and all diocesan bishops and their equivalents can be absent simultaneously, except to say a) that I do not believe that this can be the case, and b) that an extended period of sede vacante does not entail such a scenario.
St Antoninus, Summae Sacrae Theologiae, Juris Pontificii, et Caesari, Tertia Pars, Titulus Vigesimus Primus, §3. Text taken from Fr Francesco Ricossa, Pope, Papacy and the Vacant See, translated and edited by the seminarians of Most Holy Trinity Seminary, originally published in Sodalitum n. 66, pp. 4-24
Fr Goupil, S. J. L’Église, 5th ed., 1946, Laval, pp. 48-49, cited in Fr Bernard Lucien, La situation actuelle de l’autorité dans l’Église, Brussels 1985.
In support of the comments made by St Antoninus, consider the following from Fr Charles Journet:
“We must not think of the Church, when the Pope is dead, as possessing the papal power in act, in a state of diffusion, so that she herself can delegate it to the next Pope in whom it will be re-condensed and made definite. When the Pope dies the Church is widowed, and, in respect of the visible universal jurisdiction, she is truly acephalous.
“But she is not acephalous as are the schismatic Churches, nor like a body on the way to decomposition. Christ directs her from heaven. There is no one left then on earth who can visibly exercise the supreme spiritual jurisdiction in His name, and, in consequence, any new manifestations of the general life of the Church are prevented.
“But, though slowed down, the pulse of life has not left the Church; she possesses the power of the Papacy in potency, in the sense that Christ, who has willed her always to depend on a visible pastor, has given her power to designate the man to whom He will Himself commit the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, as once He committed them to Peter.” (Emphasis added)
The above text was also cited by Fr Nicolás Despósito ICR in his article ‘The Apostolicity of the Church and the Cassiciacum Thesis,’ published in January 2026 by Most Holy Trinity Seminary, USA. In this article, Fr Despósito also provided the following from Bernadino López de Carvajal:
“When the See is vacant, does this supreme pontificate or this plenitude of power remain in the Church, or in the College of Cardinals? It is customary among theologians to make a distinction: either this pontificate refers to the authority itself and to the supreme jurisdiction in its source, and then it does not perish when the pope dies—since it remains in Christ the First Pastor who, rising from the dead, is not able to die anymore, which authority Christ has given immediately to Peter and in him to his successors; or this pontificate, taken materially, refers to the faculty of electing and determining the person who is to discharge the office of supreme pontiff and in this sense it remains immediately in the College of Cardinals.” (Second emphasis added)
Berry writes:
“Relative catholicity refers to the universality of the Church as compared with that of some other society. In this latter sense, the Church will be Catholic if it is more widespread than any other single church. As already noted, mere numbers do not constitute universality; one church is not more Catholic, or universal, than another because of the mere fact that it numbers more adherents.
“Absolute Catholicity is necessary in the true Church as shown above, but relative Catholicity does not seem necessary; at least, its necessity can be proved neither from Scripture nor tradition, and there seems to be no reason why a false sect might not become universally distributed over the world, unless perhaps God in His providence prevents it, of which we have no assurance.” p. 73
“Neither will mere numbers constitute universality; a large number of members confined to a relatively small portion of the world does not constitute universality.” p, 127.
“Therefore, if the Church is to be Catholic in fact, its members and all its parts throughout the world must be so united as to form but one society – a visible society with unity of government, faith and worship…
“It is not sufficient for actual Catholicity that a Church have members scattered far and wide throughout the world; the Church itself, as a society, must exist in the various parts of the world to exercise its authority and carry on the mission of Christ. In other words, the Church of Christ must be formally universal.” p. 139-40
He writes:
“Neither will mere numbers constitute universality; a large number of members confined to a relatively small portion of the world does not constitute universality.” (p. 70)
However, he also writes:
“Cardinal Bellarmine held that the Church might be so reduced in extent as to be confined for a time to one single country or province, provided it were still recognized as the Church that had been universally spread over the world. This opinion has been rejected by theologians in general, yet it seems quite evident from the Apocalypse of St. John that just such a situation will be realized in the· days of Antichrist. In chapter xii the Church is symbolized by a woman who is pursued and persecuted by a dragon (Satan). ‘And the woman fled into the wilderness where she has a place prepared by God, that they may nourish her a thousand two hundred and sixty days.” And again, ‘there was given to the woman the two wings of the great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness unto her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, away from the serpent.’
“These words clearly indicate that the Church will be forced to seek retreat in some friendly nation or province where she can be protected from destruction for the three and one half years of Satan’s reign. During this time of retreat the Church will be greatly limited in her diffusion, but she will still be morally universal,—he will still be known through- out the world; her very persecution will make her known far and wide through the nations of the world. Today we see the forebodings, if not the actual beginnings, of the situation just described.” (pp. 73-4)
Berry writes:
“MORALLY CATHOLIC. Physical universality would be realized if the Church were so completely spread over the earth that she actually exercised her authority over every portion of the inhabited world. It is evident that the Church has never been so diffused, and therefore such universality cannot be necessary. […]
“lt is sufficient, then, that the Church be morally universal, i.e., that she be so wide-spread throughout the world that she may easily be known even in those regions in which she does not actually exist; or, as Suarez puts it: ‘If she has such universal renown that she may be known and distinguished from all heretical sects.’ SIMULTANEOUSLY CATHOLIC. The Church might have a successive existence in various parts of the world, dying out in one place as it springs up in another, until finally the Gospel would have been announced in all parts of the world. This would constitute successive catholicity, but it is evident that such universality is not sufficient, because at no time would the Church be really Catholic in any true sense of the word. Therefore, the Church must be simultaneously Catholic, i.e., it must be present throughout the whole world at one and the same time. It is true, of course, that the Church may cease to exist in this or that part of the world, but it must ever remain at least morally universal, as explained above.”
Berry, pp. 72-3.
Berry, p. 70. I have discussed what it means for the Church to exist “as a society” above. It might be suggested – as I have in the past – that the term “as a society” denotes the actual existence of a living authority. This now seems to me to be a mistake, because although a living authority is necessary in order for the Church as a society to be existing in the way that she should, it does not follow that those parts of the Church which are temporarily deprived of a living authority cease to be members of the Church as a society – they continue to exist with the Church’s laws intact, in pursuit of the common goal of the society, and so on.
However, it is notable that Berry writes the following:
“It is not sufficient for actual Catholicity that a Church have members scattered far and wide throughout the world; the Church itself, as a society, must exist in the various parts of the world to exercise its authority and carry on the mission of Christ. In other words, the Church of Christ must be formally universal.” (p 70).
If we were to take Berry’s meaning to be that the Church must exist with living authorities, then what he is saying is that she exists in this way in “various parts of the world” – which seems to acknowledge a distinction between the Church’s members existing in “many” parts of the world. The contention here would be that, if living authorities are indeed necessary for the Church, the requirements of the Church’s catholicity are satisfied by these authorities living in “various” parts of the world, even if many of her members are deprived of access to their own legitimate pastors, and are temporarily required to organise themselves according to the dictates of necessity and prudence.
Rev. Timoteo Zapelena, S.J., De Ecclesia Christi: Pars Apologetica, Rome: Gregorian, 1955, p. 489; italics given; underlining added. Translation by Novus Ordo Watch.
Vol. 3, pp. 527–29, in de Saint-Just, at the end of the Conclusion. Soon to be published by Stabat Mater Press.
Cf. the extract here: https://www.wmreview.org/p/rupture-journet
Billot, p. 218. https://archive.org/details/tractatusdeeccle01bill/page/218/mode/1up
Here is the text immediately preceding the text above:
“Here I think it best to prescind from the singular opinion of Bellarmine, who says (Book IV de Ecclesia, ch. 7) that simultaneous diffusion is not required, such that at one and the same time there must necessarily be some of the faithful in all provinces, but that it suffices if this occurs successively.
“‘From which it follows,’ he says, ‘that if one province alone retained the true faith, it would still truly and properly be called the Catholic Church, provided it were clearly shown to be one and the same as that which existed at some time, or at various times, throughout the whole world: just as any diocese is now called Catholic, because it is in continuity with the others which together constitute one Catholic Church.’”
Eric Sammons, How the Church Lost Her Mission, and How We Can Reclaim It, Chapter I (ebook version). Crisis Publications, Manchester NH, 2021.
‘Full text of Benedict XVI’s recent, rare, and lengthy interview’, in The Catholic World Report, 17 March 2016. Available at https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2016/03/17/full-text-of-benedict-xvis-recent-rare-and-lengthy-interview/
Ibid.
Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church (as a whole), Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present search for Full Communion, 23 June 1993.
Ibid., n. 30.
Ibid., n. 10.
Ibid., n. 22.
Ibid., n. 12.
Ibid. n. 18.
Leo XI, Address at the Extraordinary Consistory, 7 January 2026. Available at https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/speeches/2026/january/documents/20260107-concistoro-straordinario.html
Balamand Declaration, n. 24.
Full text cited in Jan Bentz, ‘Pope again criticizes ‘proselytism’: ‘It is not licit that you convince them of your faith’, LifeSiteNews, 19 October 2016. Available at https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/pope-to-teen-girl-proselytism-is-the-strongest-poison-against-the-ecumenica/
Balamand Declaration, n. 29.
Ibid., nn. 25, 29, 30.
Ibid., n. 29.
Ibid., n. 25.
Ibid., n. 20.
Ibid., n. 13.
Ibid., n. 15.
Ibid., n. 34.
Cited by Pope Leo XIII in Encyclical Inimica Vis, n. 7, 1892.
John Paul II wrote:
“60. More recently, the Joint International Commission took a significant step forward with regard to the very sensitive question of the method to be followed in re-establishing full communion between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, an issue which has frequently embittered relations between Catholics and Orthodox. The Commission has laid the doctrinal foundations for a positive solution to this problem on the basis of the doctrine of Sister Churches. Here too it has become evident that the method to be followed towards full communion is the dialogue of truth, fostered and sustained by the dialogue of love. A recognition of the right of the Eastern Catholic Churches to have their own organizational structures and to carry out their own apostolate, as well as the actual involvement of these Churches in the dialogue of charity and in theological dialogue, will not only promote a true and fraternal mutual esteem between Orthodox and Catholics living in the same territory, but will also foster their joint commitment to work for unity.99 A step forward has been taken. The commitment must continue. Already there are signs of a lessening of tensions, which is making the quest for unity more fruitful.”
Encyclical Ut unum sint, n. 60.
Cardinal Kurt Koch et al., Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, ‘The Gifts and the Calling of God are Irrevocable’ (Rom. 11.29), n. 37. 10 December 2015. Available at https://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo-crre/documenti-della-commissione/en.html.
Ibid.
Ibid., n. 40.
Ibid., n. 42.
Ibid., n. 44.
Ibid., n. 46.
Ibid., n. 47.
John Paul II, Meeting of John Paul II with representatives of the Jewish community, 17 November 1980. Available at https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/speeches/1980/november/documents/hf_jp_ii_spe_19801117_ebrei-magonza.html
Benedict XVI, Not Mission but Dialogue, published in Herder Korrespondenz, 2018. Available at https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=12765
Cardinal Kurt Koch, Letter to Rabbi Rasson Arussi, 3 September 2021. Sent on headed notepaper from the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, available at https://www.christianunity.va/content/dam/unitacristiani/Ebraismo/2021%2009%2003%20Koch-Arussi.pdf
“[A]n asymmetry seems to remain: the Church needs to think theologically about its relationship with Judaism in order to understand itself, which is not the case for Judaism.”
Jean-Marc Aveline, ‘Les enjeux actuels des relations entre juifs et chrétiens,’ Études 2010/10 Tome 413, p 355-366. Available here. Cf. also S.D. Wright, ‘Conclave frontrunner Cardinal Aveline’s views on Judaism subvert Church teaching’, LifeSiteNews, 2 May 2025, available here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/conclave-frontrunner-cardinal-avelines-views-on-judaism-subvert-church-teaching/
‘Bishop Robert Barron’, The Ben Shapiro Show, 16 December 2018. Available at https://www.dailywire.com/episode/sunday%20special%20ep-31-bishop-robert-barron
Berry, 125.
Salaverri, n. 1164.
Berry, p 23.
Cf, for example, the following hostile source: Paul E. Pierson, ‘Roman Catholic Missions since Vatican II: An Evangelical Assessment’, International Bulletin of Mission Research, Vol. 9, Issue 4, October 1985. Available online at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/239693938500900404?download=true
Berry writes:
“Absolute Catholicity is necessary in the true Church as shown above, but relative Catholicity does not seem necessary; at least, its necessity can be proved neither from Scripture nor tradition, and there seems to be no reason why a false sect might not become universally distributed over the world, unless perhaps God in His providence prevents it, of which we have no assurance.”
Berry, p. 73.
Note that, as per the definition given at the start of this part, I am not arguing that the Conciliar/Synodal Church is a “false sect” in any sense that would entail its “members” being non-Catholics by that fact alone. My contention is that this group is not the Catholic Church, taken as such. Exactly how it should be understood is debatable.
I hold that the Church remains visible by way of contrast with the anti-church. It's structures are what the Church formerly held; one need only point out that "the true Church is outside of this structure of which she resided formerly" and so the Church is visible through its antithesis. It may be like a photographic negative.
I appreciated this piece. You’re engaging questions that a lot of people avoid, especially around visibility, catholicity, and how the Church can be identified in a time of confusion.
In particular, the way you raise the issue of how the Church remains visible when her structures are obscured touches on something central. That’s very close to where I think the real difficulty lies.
From my side, I’ve been trying to follow that line of thought to its conclusion, especially in terms of how visibility relates to jurisdiction and mission in concrete terms.
So I’m curious how you would articulate this: if the visibility of the Church can be significantly obscured, and if identifying her concrete structures becomes difficult, what is the principled way to determine where jurisdiction and mission actually reside in such a situation?