11 Comments
User's avatar
User's avatar
Comment removed
Mar 20
Comment removed
S.D. Wright's avatar

What on earth are you on about. The whole thing is arguing that "structure, rites, and continuity of appearance" are NOT enough to guarantee legitimacy.

If you come on here and try to come at me with no basis and evidently not having read or understood the article, you'll be banned.

User's avatar
Comment removed
Mar 20
Comment removed
S.D. Wright's avatar

I am preparing a text from Journet on this.

User's avatar
Comment removed
Mar 20
Comment removed
S.D. Wright's avatar

I hear you. We are in a complex situation. The answers are complex.

User's avatar
Comment removed
Mar 21
Comment removed
RosaryKnight's avatar

Very thorough exposition. Thank you.

Michael Wilson's avatar

Could we not characterize this series of articles as: “a definitive rebuttal of R&R-ism, at the level of first principles.”?

I would be strongly inclined to respond, "yes" to this question.

S.D. Wright's avatar

Thanks Michael!

Michael Boharski's avatar

I thank you for this series explaining your position and its logical thought process. While this disunity was nascent before Vatican II, its hierarchical embrace seems dependent on the documents and their implementation of that Council. I wonder if you will at some later point critique Leo XIV's recent catechesis on those documents, for his justifications of his agenda by that catechesis should provide the clearest evidence of a heretical or at least contradictory disposition to infallible Magisterial teaching that would not be deniable or explained as a misinterpretation. One of the hardest things is to convince the "NO Catholics" succinctly of those specific and incompatible contradictions.

S.D. Wright's avatar

Hello Michael, possibly - though I see Louie Verrecchio is doing a good job if this. Thanks!