Teofilo and the Trad.

Teofilo of Vivificat! A Catholic Blog of Commentary and Opinion engaged a "traditionalist acquaintance" recently. The traditionalist had offered some thoughts on a post Teofilo had written on St. Peter's confession and Apostlic Succession. Sounds like the usual dissent that I've heard from Schismatic trads, although Teo's aquaintance claims he recognizes the Pope:

I think you and others seem to miss the entire point of those that have issues with the second vatican council and the changing of the mass, her customs, her bible, and her Mass which is the way we are meant to worship God, the reason why we have a Mass, and without a true sacrifice we have no mass as the mass is the sacrifice and vice versa

Can a Pope be Bad-Yes. Can a council be pastoral and not binding? Yes Can your Bishop disobey Rome as is happening all around? Yes.

No one is doubting the validity of the Papal seat, what is being debated is the direction of the church.

Teofilo deftly replies:

You contrast the pre-Vatican II Church's "mass, her customs, her bible," and the sacrificial nature of the Mass with, I assume, my own. You are wrong to make the distinction. The pre-Vatican II Church is my church too, and it goes all the way back to what happened in Matthew XVI, read in yesterday's Gospel. To say that Vatican II created a substantial discontinuity between the Church before and the Church after is sophomoric, and undermines the traditionalist claim of true catholicity at its roots. If this error weren't so tragic, it would be funny. Therefore, as I behold it, I don't laugh; I cry.
---------------------------
You say that "no one is doubting the validity of the Papal seat, what is being debated is the direction of the Church." I say that if the post-Vatican II Mass and Sacramentary are held to be near invalid or highly problematic, we haven't had a validly ordained priest or bishop since at least 1968, and that sede-vacantism is the only logical outcome of those tenets.

That way lies Gerry Matatics, for example. He worked it all out, he's an intelligent man; he's utterly wrong, of course, but at least he is consistent.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I'll add here that Schismatics can affirm all they want that the Pope is legitimate. If they dissent from his teaching, they separate themselves from the union all Catholics share in the Body of Christ. Our Savior chose Peter to lead his Church, and through Peter, his successors. If one departs from the Pope, one departs from union with the Church. Juridically they may remain Catholic, unless formally excommunicated a la Lefebre or SPPX. However, they remain as Catholic as those "Liberal" or "Progressive" Catholics that dissent from the sexual moral teachings of the Magisterium. That is to say, their claim to being Catholic sounds just as hollow, since they refuse union with the Catholic Church.

"Clowns to the Left of me, Jokers to the Right."