The article is nevertheless a valid and coherent expression of what's wrong with JPII's approach to the faith. The fact of Derksen's recent conversion to sedevacantism--this article was written two years ago--in no way invalidates the cogent argument he presents.
I am in disagreement with you here. His analysis is not philosophically coherent and his argument is therefore invalid.
The fact of Derksen's recent conversion to sedevacantism--this article was written two years ago--in no way invalidates the cogent argument he presents.
I agree with you that the mere fact of his sedevacantism does not mean that his arguments are automatically wrong.
This is why I mentioned his philosophical incoherence as a reason to disregard Maximilian's estimation of his views.
By the way, thank you for describing his position so accurately and pithily as a "conversion to sedevacantism."
Sedevacantism is indeed a separate, non-Catholic religion and one must effectively convert from Catholicism in order to become a sedevacantist.