This is what I thought for years hanging out with "orthodox" Catholics, trying to attend the most conservative churches, reading The Wanderer, etc.
However, I come to find out that there are almost as many different sub-groups of "orthodox" Catholics as there are Protestant sects.
Entire sub-groups of "orthodox" Catholics believe that all of the popes from John XXIII on are either anti-popes or at least no longer teaching official Catholic dogma.
They would not agree with this essayist's take on John Paul II and Benedict as being popes who brought the Church back closer to Her original teaching.
The "orthodox" Catholics I hung out with loved Ratzinger and believed it would be a Holy Miracle if he ever became Pope ... and surprise, surprise he did. But a lot of "orthodox" Catholics would have us believe that he is either an anti-pope or a "conciliar" quasi-pope, or just an ineffective pope.
We do indeed live in interesting times.
your definition of “orthodox” is too broad and includes those who think they are holier than the pope.
-—However, I come to find out that there are almost as many different sub-groups of “orthodox” Catholics as there are Protestant sects.-—
Wow...some here will consider you a heretic for saying that...
The blind leading the blind. I missed this thread, but your post reminds me of another:
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html