Chapter I of 'Zero Marks' explains the Church's teaching about her own unity, and shows that the Conciliar/Synodal Church of Vatican II is very much found wanting.
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.
What stands out most is not just what you argue, but what you assume without ever proving. You speak as if structure, rites, and continuity of appearance are enough to guarantee legitimacy, yet never answer the central question: who sent these men? Authority in the Church is not self-generated, and it does not arise from necessity, consensus, or survival instinct. If mission and jurisdiction must come from a living source, where is that source now? And if it cannot be shown, on what basis do you claim that what remains is more than a shell? You’ve built an entire system on inherited forms while bypassing the very principle that gives those forms life. So the real question is this: are you defending the Church, or defending the appearance of it?
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.
I apologize if my comment came across the wrong way—that wasn’t my intention. I’m not arguing that structure, rites, or continuity of appearance guarantee legitimacy. In fact, I agree with you that they don’t.
What I was trying to express is slightly different: if those things aren’t enough, then the key question becomes exactly what you raised—who sent these men?
So maybe we’re closer than it seemed. I’m asking the same question you are: where does the mission actually come from, and can it be concretely identified?
If you see a clear line of that mission today, I’d genuinely be interested in how you trace it.
That would be great—I’d be interested to see how you develop it.
If I can anticipate where the difficulty seems to arise (and maybe you’ll address this): Journet strongly emphasizes the visibility and indefectibility of the Church, which I agree with. But the question that keeps pressing is this:
How does that visibility remain juridically concrete if mission cannot be demonstrated in a continuous, lawful way?
In other words, if jurisdiction must come through the Church’s constitution and not from inference or necessity, what do we do in a situation where that transmission cannot be clearly identified? Does visibility alone suffice to guarantee it—or must the mission itself remain demonstrable?
Very thorough exposition. Thank you.
Thank you!
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.
Thanks Michael!
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.
Hello Michael, possibly - though I see Louie Verrecchio is doing a good job if this. Thanks!
What stands out most is not just what you argue, but what you assume without ever proving. You speak as if structure, rites, and continuity of appearance are enough to guarantee legitimacy, yet never answer the central question: who sent these men? Authority in the Church is not self-generated, and it does not arise from necessity, consensus, or survival instinct. If mission and jurisdiction must come from a living source, where is that source now? And if it cannot be shown, on what basis do you claim that what remains is more than a shell? You’ve built an entire system on inherited forms while bypassing the very principle that gives those forms life. So the real question is this: are you defending the Church, or defending the appearance of it?
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.
I apologize if my comment came across the wrong way—that wasn’t my intention. I’m not arguing that structure, rites, or continuity of appearance guarantee legitimacy. In fact, I agree with you that they don’t.
What I was trying to express is slightly different: if those things aren’t enough, then the key question becomes exactly what you raised—who sent these men?
So maybe we’re closer than it seemed. I’m asking the same question you are: where does the mission actually come from, and can it be concretely identified?
If you see a clear line of that mission today, I’d genuinely be interested in how you trace it.
I am preparing a text from Journet on this.
That would be great—I’d be interested to see how you develop it.
If I can anticipate where the difficulty seems to arise (and maybe you’ll address this): Journet strongly emphasizes the visibility and indefectibility of the Church, which I agree with. But the question that keeps pressing is this:
How does that visibility remain juridically concrete if mission cannot be demonstrated in a continuous, lawful way?
In other words, if jurisdiction must come through the Church’s constitution and not from inference or necessity, what do we do in a situation where that transmission cannot be clearly identified? Does visibility alone suffice to guarantee it—or must the mission itself remain demonstrable?
That’s really the point I’m trying to get at.
I hear you. We are in a complex situation. The answers are complex.
How will I be able to find your text/answers?