"But especially contradictory is a notion of tradition which opposes the universal magisterium of the church possessed by the bishop of Rome and the body of bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his church."
Ecclesia Dei Adflicta. Is it "traditional" to separate one's self, even if in "imperfect communion" from the center of unity, the Pope? Is this the traditional teaching of the Church. Vatican I pretty much verifies it is not.
"Ecclesia Dei Adflicta. Is it "traditional" to separate one's self, even if in "imperfect communion" from the center of unity, the Pope? Is this the traditional teaching of the Church. Vatican I pretty much verifies it is not."
You have an absolutely wrong way of looking at this. Who did the separating--the innocent men who were forced to oppose the Pontiff to defend the faith, or the Pope who wrongly interpreted their motives? It was a unilateral separation only and therefore totally invalid spiritually, legal only in the visible, physical Church.
It is as if a father were to reject a son who was innocent. If that son remained, in fact, attached to his father, even if the father should hate him, then the relation would remain valid spiritually on the son's part. The son no doubt must bide his time, waiting for the day when the father comes to his senses. But he still recognizes his father as his true father.