If we believe that Vatican II was a break from earlier teachings, which most traditional Catholics believe, then we haven't had a valid pope for close to 60 years.
So we either have to twist our minds in such a way so as to get Vatican II and its aftermath to jibe with thousands of years of prior consistent teaching, or we have to believe that those people who were in the Chair were imposters for not condemning the council. Even Popes such as JPII and Benedict who are more beloved of traditionalists scandalized the Church with their hamfisted attempts at ecumenism.
The only hope I think we have is to find some 90 year old priest who was ordained by a pre-conciliar bishop and make him Pope long enough to denounce Vatican II, retire all of the heretical cardinals, and fill the cardinalate with traditionalists. Then when he goes to meet his Maker, the stage will be set for a true renewal of the Church.
“...find some 90 year old priest who was ordained by a pre-conciliar bishop and make him Pope long enough to denounce Vatican II, retire all of the heretical cardinals, and fill the cardinalate with traditionalists. Then when he goes to meet his Maker, the stage will be set for a true renewal of the Church.”
__________
Benedict XVI’s so-called resignation failed to meet the clear requirements of Catholic Canon Law. Presumably he is tanned, rested and ready to admit that he has remained both the Bishop of Rome AND the Vicar of Christ all this time. Will he do?
Or maybe you could forget the office of Pope and traditions of men and follow what is in the Bible. Following popes and traditions is what has landed the roman church on the pachamama worshipping apostate mess it finds itself in
“ If we believe that Vatican II was a break from earlier teachings, which most traditional Catholics believe, then we haven’t had a valid pope for close to 60 years.”
Bingo.
The teaching of the Church of Rome changes. Remember when limbo existed? How low can you go?