Traditionalists want to be able to trust the Pope. But we know that such trust can only be reposed not in his person, but in his office, and only so far as he exercises his Divinely-constituted office to protect and promote the deposit of faith.
We follow the Shepherd where he follows his Master. We know how faithfully he follows his Master by where he leads the Church.
We will never reject the necessity for union with and submission to the Pope, for to do so is to reject the Tradition and Deposit of Faith of which he is the fiduciary.
<> And the traditioanlists want to have the authority to judge the Pope - well, actually four Pope's, since Pius -as being against what you traditionalists decide is tradition. No matter how you try and word this, it reduces to the same essence. Private judgement protestantism.
You folks will decide what is and isn't tradition. You folks will decide what is and isn't necessary for you to accept. Disagree with an Encyclical? No problem; just cite "tradition" and you have the Liberty you need to refuse to submit and obey
Don't like the Documents of an Ecumenical Council? Cite tradition and refuse to submit and obey. And why stop there? You folks have the real authority and truth. Publish articles, publicly agitate against Divinely-Constituted authority. Form your own priestly societies, ordain your own Bishopsan dpublish your own periodicals opposing the Pope. That is tradition. It is all necessary. If it weren't for you brilliant and holy and perspicacious folks, Hell indeed would have prevailed.
After all, you folks are the ones with the true authority and you were Divinely-Constituted to protect and defend the Faith. It is from you self described traditionalists that we are preserved from the devious lies and malign machinations of such things as post-1958 Papal Encyclicals, Reforms of the Liturgy, Ecumenical Councils and Universal Catechisms and Codes of Canon law. Who the hell did the Popes after Pius think they were messing around in the areas of traditon? That, as we alll know, is the bailiwick of the traditionalist layman, priest or seminarian.
What is a MERE PASTORAL Council against such as yourselves? So what if an Ecumenical Council is Infallible? What does that mean when compared to tradition as defined by you folks?
So what if Jesus sent the Holy Spirit upon the Catholic Church to Teach it all truth? That means little when compared to the self described traditionalists whose impeccability and infallibility is assumed with each of their prideful pronouncements. After all, traditionalists have read some Encyclicals,they own a Denziger, and they have read Michael Davie's trilogy. Where would the Catholic Church be without the teachings of the English school teacher, the lay Pope? Davies locuta est, causa finita est and woe betide that Pope who thinks he has expertise, knowledge, competence, jurisdiction and authority superior to this former English school teacher.
And if Davies doesn't do it for you, cite Fr. Gruener, a suspended priest, as an authority to oppose the Pope. If Gruener doesn't do it for you, cite Catholic Apologetic International "apologist" Sungenis. You say he cribs from Hitlerian pamphlets to spread his venomnous antisemitism? So what, he is a traditionalist.
If Sungenis doesn't do it, appeal to The Remnant. Get it, REMNANT. They are the real authority; well, them and Catholic Family News. Yes sir, get your opinions and beliefs from them. So what if they signed a public declaration refusing to obey the Pope? You traditionalists might as well sign it also. The only thing preventing you from putting your name on the "Resist you to your face" dotted line is cojones. <> And after all, isn't this just what Jesus intended? A bunch of self-annointed traditionalists running around attacking Popes and Ecumenical Councils as though they were the real authorities. If it wasn't so pathetic it would be funny.
To think that self-described traditonalist actually believe this is Tradition is a wonder.