"...it is commonly assumed that a significant number of the Conciliar/Synodal Church’s ministers are homosexuals, and that at least a notable minority act upon such predilections."
A minority? I doubt that very much.
"...the Conciliar/Synodal Church abandoned a stringent process of canonisation, and replaced it with a procedure of much lower standards."
The most egregious change was the elimination, for ulterior motives, I'm sure, of the important "Devil's Advocate" from the canonization process by JPII, thus fast-tracking his own & others' false canonizations, or as Louie Verrecchio from akacatholic.com calls them, "Conciliar Lifetime Achievement Awards for Service to the Revolution."
And as for "Those whose lives were marked by truly horrific crimes (e.g., Paul VI and his religious revolution," one should also note that he was an unchaste homosexual.
This stays on the surface and never reaches the root of the problem.
Even if every criticism were true—corruption, bad canonizations, moral collapse—that still wouldn’t explain the real issue. The Church has endured immoral clergy before without losing her constitution.
The decisive question is not moral failure but authority. Who has mission? Who has jurisdiction?
If there is no lawful mission from the Roman Pontiff, then no process—canonizations, sacraments, governance—has its proper foundation. Without that, you’re not looking at a corrupted hierarchy, but at the absence of one.
Focusing on scandals can distract from that. The deeper issue is whether the structure itself still carries apostolic authority.
If it doesn’t, then the problem isn’t that standards were lowered—it’s that the entire mechanism claiming to apply those standards no longer possesses the authority to do so.
I apologize for the confusion. I’m not attributing positions to you—you’ve said the notes are absent in the Conciliar structure and that the true Church remains visible though obscured. I agree that the notes cannot be predicated of a structure exhibiting rupture.
My point is simply this: visibility is not an abstraction. It must be grounded in concrete principles—apostolic mission, jurisdiction, and sacramental authority.
So where is that located now in a determinate way? Where is apostolic mission present such that the Church is visible in act, not just materially or conceptually?
The article tries to preserve the visibility of the Church while admitting a rupture, but that cannot hold together. The marks of the Church are not labels that survive after the causes are gone. They flow from real principles: true doctrine, true sacraments, and lawful mission.
Journet is clear that apostolicity and universality ultimately resolve through Peter—but only if Peter is truly present as the guardian of what was handed down. Not a claimant, not a majority, but continuity with the apostolic deposit.
So the question is simple: does the post-conciliar structure maintain that continuity, or does it introduce rupture in doctrine, worship, and constitution?
If there is rupture, then the notes cannot be redefined to cover it. Universality becomes widespread error, and continuity becomes contradiction.
The Church remains what she always was, but she is recognized where the same faith, the same sacrifice, and the same apostolic mission continue—without innovation or substitution.
I don't understand your comment. I haven't been redefining the notes. I've been showing how they can be obscured, and how they can be shown to be absent. I am arguing that they are shown to be absent in the Conciliar/Synodal Church as I have defined it. Therefore it's not the visible Church. But the true Church, which is not defined by the boundaries of the C/S Church remains visible, whilst also being obscured. It seems like you're disagreeing with me whilst asserting what I'm saying.
You’re right that the notes flow from real principles—doctrine, sacraments, and lawful mission. That’s precisely why the question of mission is decisive.
But that cuts both ways.
If apostolic mission from Peter cannot be publicly identified—if no one can point to where jurisdiction is actually being exercised—then the Church’s juridical visibility is not simply “obscured.” It is deprived in act.
The Church remains visible because her constitution is known and unchanged. What is visible today is not the exercise of authority, but the absence of lawful mission.
So the notes are not being treated as labels surviving without causes. Rather, the absence of their causes is itself manifest.
That condition doesn’t destroy visibility—it defines the present mode in which visibility is perceived.
You’re saying the notes are absent in the Conciliar structure, and that the true Church remains visible though obscured. I agree that the notes cannot be attributed to a structure exhibiting rupture.
But visibility is not an abstraction. It must be grounded in concrete principles: apostolic mission, jurisdiction, and sacramental authority.
So the question is not just whether the notes are absent there, but where they are present in act. Where is apostolic mission located now, such that the Church remains visible in a real, juridical sense—not just materially or conceptually?
That’s fair—you can limit the scope of your argument.
My point is simply that the question you’ve set aside is the one that ultimately determines the conclusion.
If the notes are absent, we still have to account for why they are absent in a visible, juridical society founded by Christ. The Church’s properties do not fail without a cause.
So while your analysis describes the absence, the unresolved issue remains whether that absence is rooted in a rupture of mission and jurisdiction.
Until that is addressed, the explanation remains incomplete.
The matter I'm explaining is the non-identity of the CS Church with the Catholic Church. The absence of the properties do indeed denote a rupture of mission and jurisdiction on the part of those within the CS Church who have separated themselves from the Church.
That clarification helps, and I agree with the principle you’ve stated: the absence of the properties denotes a rupture of mission and jurisdiction in that structure.
But that brings us directly to the unresolved point.
If those within the CS structure have separated themselves from the Church and lack mission, then where is that mission presently instantiated in act?
Because the Church’s constitution does not consist only in identifying where she is not, but in the presence of a real, juridical principle of authority flowing from Peter.
If that cannot be identified in living subjects in a determinate way, then we are not simply describing separation, but a condition in which mission is not operative in the ordinary sense.
That is the point I’ve been pressing—not just rupture, but the consequence of that rupture in the present.
Saving this...
Excellent article, thank you.
"...it is commonly assumed that a significant number of the Conciliar/Synodal Church’s ministers are homosexuals, and that at least a notable minority act upon such predilections."
A minority? I doubt that very much.
"...the Conciliar/Synodal Church abandoned a stringent process of canonisation, and replaced it with a procedure of much lower standards."
The most egregious change was the elimination, for ulterior motives, I'm sure, of the important "Devil's Advocate" from the canonization process by JPII, thus fast-tracking his own & others' false canonizations, or as Louie Verrecchio from akacatholic.com calls them, "Conciliar Lifetime Achievement Awards for Service to the Revolution."
And as for "Those whose lives were marked by truly horrific crimes (e.g., Paul VI and his religious revolution," one should also note that he was an unchaste homosexual.
traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_094_MontiniHomo.html (also 2 other related short articles there)
This stays on the surface and never reaches the root of the problem.
Even if every criticism were true—corruption, bad canonizations, moral collapse—that still wouldn’t explain the real issue. The Church has endured immoral clergy before without losing her constitution.
The decisive question is not moral failure but authority. Who has mission? Who has jurisdiction?
If there is no lawful mission from the Roman Pontiff, then no process—canonizations, sacraments, governance—has its proper foundation. Without that, you’re not looking at a corrupted hierarchy, but at the absence of one.
Focusing on scandals can distract from that. The deeper issue is whether the structure itself still carries apostolic authority.
If it doesn’t, then the problem isn’t that standards were lowered—it’s that the entire mechanism claiming to apply those standards no longer possesses the authority to do so.
Again, you are disagreeing with some I didn't write, and opposing to it points which I did write.
I apologize for the confusion. I’m not attributing positions to you—you’ve said the notes are absent in the Conciliar structure and that the true Church remains visible though obscured. I agree that the notes cannot be predicated of a structure exhibiting rupture.
My point is simply this: visibility is not an abstraction. It must be grounded in concrete principles—apostolic mission, jurisdiction, and sacramental authority.
So where is that located now in a determinate way? Where is apostolic mission present such that the Church is visible in act, not just materially or conceptually?
The article tries to preserve the visibility of the Church while admitting a rupture, but that cannot hold together. The marks of the Church are not labels that survive after the causes are gone. They flow from real principles: true doctrine, true sacraments, and lawful mission.
Journet is clear that apostolicity and universality ultimately resolve through Peter—but only if Peter is truly present as the guardian of what was handed down. Not a claimant, not a majority, but continuity with the apostolic deposit.
So the question is simple: does the post-conciliar structure maintain that continuity, or does it introduce rupture in doctrine, worship, and constitution?
If there is rupture, then the notes cannot be redefined to cover it. Universality becomes widespread error, and continuity becomes contradiction.
The Church remains what she always was, but she is recognized where the same faith, the same sacrifice, and the same apostolic mission continue—without innovation or substitution.
I don't understand your comment. I haven't been redefining the notes. I've been showing how they can be obscured, and how they can be shown to be absent. I am arguing that they are shown to be absent in the Conciliar/Synodal Church as I have defined it. Therefore it's not the visible Church. But the true Church, which is not defined by the boundaries of the C/S Church remains visible, whilst also being obscured. It seems like you're disagreeing with me whilst asserting what I'm saying.
You’re right that the notes flow from real principles—doctrine, sacraments, and lawful mission. That’s precisely why the question of mission is decisive.
But that cuts both ways.
If apostolic mission from Peter cannot be publicly identified—if no one can point to where jurisdiction is actually being exercised—then the Church’s juridical visibility is not simply “obscured.” It is deprived in act.
The Church remains visible because her constitution is known and unchanged. What is visible today is not the exercise of authority, but the absence of lawful mission.
So the notes are not being treated as labels surviving without causes. Rather, the absence of their causes is itself manifest.
That condition doesn’t destroy visibility—it defines the present mode in which visibility is perceived.
You’re saying the notes are absent in the Conciliar structure, and that the true Church remains visible though obscured. I agree that the notes cannot be attributed to a structure exhibiting rupture.
But visibility is not an abstraction. It must be grounded in concrete principles: apostolic mission, jurisdiction, and sacramental authority.
So the question is not just whether the notes are absent there, but where they are present in act. Where is apostolic mission located now, such that the Church remains visible in a real, juridical sense—not just materially or conceptually?
Sorry Louis, you say "the question is not ~~~" but I will decide the question I want to answer in a given piece.
That’s fair—you can limit the scope of your argument.
My point is simply that the question you’ve set aside is the one that ultimately determines the conclusion.
If the notes are absent, we still have to account for why they are absent in a visible, juridical society founded by Christ. The Church’s properties do not fail without a cause.
So while your analysis describes the absence, the unresolved issue remains whether that absence is rooted in a rupture of mission and jurisdiction.
Until that is addressed, the explanation remains incomplete.
The matter I'm explaining is the non-identity of the CS Church with the Catholic Church. The absence of the properties do indeed denote a rupture of mission and jurisdiction on the part of those within the CS Church who have separated themselves from the Church.
That clarification helps, and I agree with the principle you’ve stated: the absence of the properties denotes a rupture of mission and jurisdiction in that structure.
But that brings us directly to the unresolved point.
If those within the CS structure have separated themselves from the Church and lack mission, then where is that mission presently instantiated in act?
Because the Church’s constitution does not consist only in identifying where she is not, but in the presence of a real, juridical principle of authority flowing from Peter.
If that cannot be identified in living subjects in a determinate way, then we are not simply describing separation, but a condition in which mission is not operative in the ordinary sense.
That is the point I’ve been pressing—not just rupture, but the consequence of that rupture in the present.