CathInfo.com

1) By "more fundamental issues," are you referring to issues regarding the "recognize and resist" position generally?

2) Yes, we definitely started in 2011 by trying to ensure the "failed thing" would carry on in a new incarnation (and some like me, or supporters of the SAJM, still do).  Our position is that it is not the "thing" (i.e., religious congregations, hierarchy, and authority per se) that failed, but the people running them that failed.

We believe there is simply no precedent for independence in a Church which is constituted hierarchically.

Even in Benson's "Lord of the World," amidst the final persecution, and a crisis which exceeds ours in magnitude, with the priesthood whittled down to a half dozen cardinals, priests, and Pope, there was still hierarchy.

Perhaps we are wrong, but that is what we believe.

Not trying to argue; just trying to understand your perspective.

1) In part only because the position is not really sound. It has theological gaps which are questionable.


2)Yes, of course it was people who were the weakest link. That is the nature of men, even clerics. However, this fact does not rule out any structural, doctrinal, or canonical weaknesses which are present.
There is no precedent of objective hierarchical independence but again, that does not rule out the possiblilty of independent action which would find its justification within the Tradition and laws of the Church.


Benson's case is predicated upon that remnant of clerics being valid, Catholic, and legitimate. We do not live in such a time, when we can have that level of certainty.


In short, as I see it, certain parts of this R&R theory and theology do defy logic, and the only way that I stayed with it for years, was by force of will and a a refusal to draw the logical conclusion from theose contradictions.  Not trying to argue or convince, only giving you that perspective.


God Bless