A Schismatic Ultratraditionalist

[annie]

Laudate--

I am a non-theologian type, average American Catholic, and have had a rash of running into these types of things (the sedevaticanists or whatever the word is) and I wondered, is there a reference that is simple and clear for us average types to use in refuting this type of schismatic activity? I had never even heard of it until the Passion of the Christ came out, and most of it has been comments here and there--but as a convert, wow, it is disheartening to hear 'Catholics' saying these kinds of things!

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='annie' date='Apr 4 2004, 08:28 PM'] Laudate--

I am a non-theologian type, average American Catholic, and have had a rash of running into these types of things (the sedevaticanists or whatever the word is) and I wondered, is there a reference that is simple and clear for us average types to use in refuting this type of schismatic activity? I had never even heard of it until the Passion of the Christ came out, and most of it has been comments here and there--but as a convert, wow, it is disheartening to hear 'Catholics' saying these kinds of things! [/quote]
I wish there was... I know James Likoudis wrote a book a long time ago called something like "The Pope, the Council and the Mass". This book was contra radical traditionalist polemics. I read some of it a few years ago and thought it was ok, but don't consider it to be the be all end all. I think this is one area in which apologetics is lacking. I hope someone, someday comes along and writes an exaustive treatise and reference for this discussion. I'm sure there are good resources out there that I'm just not aware of right now.
One problem though, is that many of the traditionalist issues are in fact legitimate and are not unorthodox, so its not the same as debunking heresy, although many of the polemics, especially among schismatic or sedevacantist traditionalists are in fact heretical and just as worthy of a scathing critique as any old anti-Catholic propaganda.

Peace.

P.S. I have seen stuff on the net that refutes schismatic and sedevacantist arguments, but nothing very exhaustive.

[popestpiusx]

Here is a debate between some sedevecantists and Fr. Brian Harrison.
[url="http://www.traditionalmass.org/SedDebate.htm"]http://www.traditionalmass.org/SedDebate.htm[/url]

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

DON'T VISIT www.traditionalmass.org! Just look at this quote from their homepage:
[quote]We promote:

The traditional Latin Mass.
 
The traditional Roman Catholic Faith
 
Vocations to the traditional Catholic priesthood.
 
[b]Resistance to the errors of Vatican II.[/b]

[i]They also have links to:[/i]
  [b]"JP2/Vat2 Errors"[/b] 
  [b]"Modern Errors"[/b]

[i]They also refer to JPII as an "apostate."  This isn't a Catholic website, beware.[/i][/quote]

[b]Anways...:[/b]
I too have been looking for a good apologetics resource for debating ultratraditionalists, but this is really the only thing I've found. I haven't read through it, but it looks extensive:
[url="http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/TRADIT.html"]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/TRADIT.html[/url]

Dave Armstrong also wrote an e-book about ultratraditionalism available on his website for $6.00. I don't know how good it is, because I don't have it.

Edited April 6, 2004 by thedude

[popestpiusx]

Many of Armstrong's arguments are weak. There are a number of good resources on the matter but I don't consider his to be particularly convincing.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Most of the resources I've come across are quite incomplete. It is a tough subject to write on too, for there are many types of "Traditionalists" with many different views about Vat. II, the Novus Ordo, JPII, etc.

[popestpiusx]

Yes there are. That's why I was saying earlier that to paint them all with one brush is somewhat confusing. It would be better if we use names that prperly reflect the distinctions involved. It is not an easy issue though.