Replies

Why don't you educate me. How about this, what does this mean that's different than I said?

At Novus Ordo Watch we have been very critical of Mr. Schneider because, aside from how sincere he may be or whatever good intentions he may have, by holding fast to the Vatican II Church as the true Catholic Church and Francis and his five predecessors as true Catholic Popes, he is doing incalculable damage to souls. This is especially evident in his attempts to squeeze traditional Catholic positions into this anti-Catholic framework.
[...]
The damage Schneider has the potential to cause is, therefore, even greater than that of Francis in a certain sense, as Francis’ defection from the Faith is open and manifest, whereas Schneider’s de facto anti-Catholicism comes under the guise of orthodoxy and Tradition.
[...]
We must always keep before us that what matters is not the personal intentions of the adherents of the false Modernist church but the danger they objectively present. As the 19th century English priest Fr. Frederick Faber once said: “It is the good men, good once, we must hope good still, who are to do the work of Anti-Christ and so sadly to crucify the Lord afresh…. Bear in mind this feature of the last days, that this deceitfulness arises from good men being on the wrong side” (source).

I reiterate. They are saying he has good intentions but the fact that he hasn't disavowed the current papacy is a danger to the true church because he will make others think it's okay to do likewise. Apparently to not be a danger, he must disavow Francis (and lots of other Popes going back to Vatican II). And while he might be a good guy personally, all that really matters is the "damage" he can do by not calling Francis a heretic.

What is the subtlety I'm missing. I went to secular universities so I lack nuance.