Welcome back. I’ve actually been looking forward to this follow-up, so I’m glad you wrote it. You’re clearly taking the crisis seriously, and I think you did a good job showing that this isn’t just surface-level confusion—it’s something deeper.
The one thing I’d just nudge a bit is where the explanation starts leaning on private revelations or historical reconstruction to fill in the gaps. That can get tricky fast.
For me, it keeps coming back to a simpler question: how do we actually identify real authority in the Church today—not just who seems right, but who can show they were truly sent?
Fair enough, I shouldn’t have phrased it that way. I didn’t mean private revelation in the strict sense.
What I was getting at is more the reliance on reconstruction to bridge gaps where the Church normally gives us something more concrete. That’s where I think things can get a bit unstable.
For me, it still comes back to the same point: how do you/we actually identify who has real mission and jurisdiction today in a way that can be demonstrated?
This is a response to an attempt to use the argument from prescription in defence of the Conciliar/Synodal Church. It isn't supposed to be a resolution of all issues, or even the most important ones.
That makes sense, S.D.—I understand you’re focusing on the prescription question here.
I’ll be interested to see how you address the broader issue when you get to it—especially how authority can be positively identified if prescription doesn’t hold. I look forward to that.
Welcome back. I’ve actually been looking forward to this follow-up, so I’m glad you wrote it. You’re clearly taking the crisis seriously, and I think you did a good job showing that this isn’t just surface-level confusion—it’s something deeper.
The one thing I’d just nudge a bit is where the explanation starts leaning on private revelations or historical reconstruction to fill in the gaps. That can get tricky fast.
For me, it keeps coming back to a simpler question: how do we actually identify real authority in the Church today—not just who seems right, but who can show they were truly sent?
That part still feels unresolved.
I don't think I've appealed to private revelations anywhere on this.
Fair enough, I shouldn’t have phrased it that way. I didn’t mean private revelation in the strict sense.
What I was getting at is more the reliance on reconstruction to bridge gaps where the Church normally gives us something more concrete. That’s where I think things can get a bit unstable.
For me, it still comes back to the same point: how do you/we actually identify who has real mission and jurisdiction today in a way that can be demonstrated?
That part is what I’m still not seeing resolved.
This is a response to an attempt to use the argument from prescription in defence of the Conciliar/Synodal Church. It isn't supposed to be a resolution of all issues, or even the most important ones.
That makes sense, S.D.—I understand you’re focusing on the prescription question here.
I’ll be interested to see how you address the broader issue when you get to it—especially how authority can be positively identified if prescription doesn’t hold. I look forward to that.