Lad can correct me, but after reading hundreds of his posts (as you have done too), I interpret his theory as saying that:
.
1) a Traditional catholic, by definition, does have some doubt/confusion about the V2 popes, because they attend a non-rome sanctioned mass.
2) A traditional catholic, by definition, receives sacraments from "schismatic" (new-rome's perspective) priests.
3) A traditional catholic implicitly rejects V2 and new-rome's authority (in favor of Quo Primum's authority) by attendance at non-rome sanctioned Trad masses, just as anyone who attends an indult implicitly accepts V2 and the new mass.
4) Xavier is an example of Ladislaus' hypocritical schismatic fake-trad, because he fully believes that the V2 popes are popes, and yet he attends Trad masses. He ignores canon law and goes wherever he wants.
.
All Trads are implicit V2 pope doubters. Sedes are just explicit about the doubt and take it to the extreme. ...Even most conservative novus ordo-ites are papal doubters. It's a sign of the times - confusion.
.
That's an over-simplification.
1) You are projecting. I have no doubts regarding the legitimacy of the conciliar popes;
2) Hyperbole: Lefebvre explained that when he called conciliar Rome schismatic, he didn’t mean it in a strictly theological/canonical way, but only insofar as their teachings often represent a break from the past. He specifically-in the same article- requested people like you stop twisting his thoughts;
3) Nonsense: The essence of Lefebvre’s R&R (quoted by Stubborn, which traps Loudestmouth into silence to this very moment), is that we respect their authority, but reject their harmful teachings. Loudestmouth says that’s heretical...until he is shown Lefebvre saying it.
PS: Your gratuitous conclusion about all trads being sede doubters was refuted at #1
Topic: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo? (Read 27391 times)