A Schismatic Ultratraditionalist

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[url="http://home.att.net/~dcsfree/Heresies_of_Anti.doc"]http://home.att.net/~dcsfree/Heresies_of_Anti.doc[/url]

This is a document outlying the "heresies" of "anti-pope" John Paul II. Most of the "heresies" looked like quotes out of context and other bogus. Your thoughts?

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='thedude' date='Apr 3 2004, 05:54 PM'] [url="http://home.att.net/~dcsfree/Heresies_of_Anti.doc"]http://home.att.net/~dcsfree/Heresies_of_Anti.doc[/url]

This is a document outlying the "heresies" of "anti-pope" John Paul II. Most of the "heresies" looked like quotes out of context and other bogus. Your thoughts? [/quote]
That's heresy against the Pope.

[popestpiusx]

I'm not sure I would refer to these people as traditionalists of any kind. Is he a sedevecantist or conclavist?

[p0lar_bear]

Well...since the pope can't be a heretic...I guess that would make them wrong....

I didn't look at the site, but I've seen stuff like that before. Most of the stuff is out of context, things that are only heresy in their own minds, etc.


[quote]I'm not sure I would refer to these people as traditionalists of any kind. Is he a sedevecantist or conclavist? [/quote]

"Traditionalist" can be a tricky term. Some "traditionalists" are fully within the Church and make no claims against her, but prefer some of the older small "t" traditions. The term is also used for those outside the Church, who have decided that the Church is no longer the Church. While I would venture to say that most "traditionalists" outside the Church, are not sedevecantists, most sedevecantists could be described as "traditionalists."

Edited April 4, 2004 by p0lar_bear

[popestpiusx]

Yes, polar bear, that's whay I said that "I" would not call them traditionalists. I think that term should be more restrictive. The sedevecantist's and conclavists may be traditionalists in the accidents but not in the essence. I very well aware of all th application of the term and think it is terribly misleading and confusng to those who don't know the issues at hand. I am suggesting a different use.

That being said, the Pope can be a heretic personally but not "as Pope". In other words, he may say things or teach things privately that are matreially heretical (such as John XXII did) but can never declare these things as doctrines/dogmas of the faith. Actions, qua actions, are not heretical, nor can they be. They may be manifestions of heretical beliefs, but are not heretical themselves.

In any case, of course they are wrong. I hope I did not give the impression that they were right. If I did I apologize.

[p0lar_bear]

[quote]In any case, of course they are wrong. I hope I did not give the impression that they were right. If I did I apologize. [/quote]

I never thought you agreed with them. I was just trying to point out that the term "traditionalist" can refer to a lot of different groups, not so much for your sake as for others reading this thread.

[popestpiusx]

Ok, good. I was just making sure that I wasn't giving the wrong impression. Thanks and God Bless!!

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Thanks for your thoughts. I read over some of the points and they were quite outrageous in some cases (saying that the Vatican views other churches to be "just as good"). In other cases, things were misconstrued or misquoted. These schisms are the most disheartening of all heresies to me.

[Hananiah]

Any interpretation of the documents of Vatican II which put them in opposition to previous magesterial teaching, whether the interpreter be traditionalist, neo-conservative, or liberal, is wrong, ipso facto.

Edited April 4, 2004 by Hananiah

[popestpiusx]

True, but how is that relevant to the thread??

[Hananiah]

Perhaps it isn't.

[Theoketos]

Prehaps it is...

for it can distinguish a orthodox traditionalist from a apostate.

[popestpiusx]

You may have something there theoketos. In that case, hananiah, your post was quite relevant.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I just quickly read through that document. It was pretty lame. The SSPX often uses these kind of grids with one liners too. The problem is that everything is taken out of context. Most of those things are easily explained and resolved. Granted some pose a bit of difficulty, but can still be adequately explained. It would be a lot of work, but it might be productive to go through that document line by line and explain everything... Not now though. Anyway, that document is basically trash. Its anti-Catholic propaganda. I'm disgusted that people who claim to be Catholic would sink so low to try and discredit the Church and the Pope. Sad.

[Donna]

Dude, is there a similiar link which doesn't put a "possible virus warning" window up before I can get into the file?

O maybe it doesn't matter.