Those words have an actual meaning. A "schismatic" is someone who denies communion with the Roman Pontiff or those in communion with him. A "heretic" is a baptized person who obstinately denies a revealed truth of the faith.
Pretty sure ebb is innocent on both counts.
Ask ebb who the last valid Pope was, and what parts of Vatican II are valid.
Are sedevacantists schismatic or are they good Roman Catholics? Are not “Traditionalists” regarded in many corners of the Vatican as schismatic also?
Yes. They are.
Pretty sure ebb is innocent on both counts.
Pretty sure he DOES qualify as schismatic based on your definition.
Ebb, are you really in communion with the Roman Pontiff?
Then just what IS he guilty of?
His arrogance is in full view and his spite of his pope is as well.
How can one reject Francis as a valid pope, which ET did again right in post 12 , as well as apparently Pope Paul VI - since he considers Nostra Aetate to be teaching (formal I assume) heresy (and not just Evangelli Gaudium by Francis) and states that a heretic cannot be a valid pope - and yet not be schismatic, though he repeatedly has refused to directly tell us who he considers the last validly elected pope (or last real pope).
I think some other RCs here are secret disciples also of an unknown last valid pope, who sound like a class of SSPV disciples who do not say so directly.
And as you well know but for others who do not, I am a former RC, now evangelical, who sees the RCC as the most manifest deformation of the NT church , with Catholic distinctives being unseen in the only inspired record of what the NT church believed, and thus would be considered lost by traditional RCs, though some modern ones censure me for not being part of sloppy ecumenism.
And while ET here has relegated Francis to being "Protestant," on the other side in the same (?) RCC are those who say such things as
If you think that the Holy Ghost made a mistake and there hasn’t been a valid Pope in Rome since the 1960s or since the resignation of Benedict XVI, you’re a Protestant.
If you would rather follow the teachings of one pompous cardinal rather than the successor to Peter, that doesn’t make you more Catholic than the Pope, it makes you a Protestant.
If you think the Holy Ghost has forsaken the Pope and now speaks through a pack of theology professors, the bishop of the SSPX which has no canonical standing, and some guy who writes for The Remnant, in defiance of the Holy Father, you’re a Protestant.
If you obey every Catholic teaching that meshes with Right-wing sensibility but assume that every teaching that meshes with the Left isn’t equally binding or vice versa, you’re a Protestant. Ditto if you think that aesthetics, important as they are, make a Mass invalid and that a Church who allows the Novus Ordo has committed an error. Same if you think that any scholar on earth, no matter how many times he’s read Saint Thomas, knows more about Church teaching than the Holy Ghost Who speaks through Peter’s successor. - http://www.patheos.com/blogs/steelmagnificat/2017/09/call-catholic-pope/#disqus_thread