Tue 21st Oct 2014 | Last updated: Tue 21st Oct 2014 at 06:37am

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Prefect of the CDF says seeing Vatican II as a ‘rupture’ is heresy

By on Friday, 30 November 2012

Archbishop Müller, prefect of the CDF (Photo: CNS)

Archbishop Müller, prefect of the CDF (Photo: CNS)

Traditionalist and progressive camps that see the Second Vatican Council as a “rupture” both espouse a “heretical interpretation” of the Council and its aims, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has said.

Archbishop Gerhard Müller said that what Pope Benedict XVI has termed “the hermeneutic of reform, of renewal in continuity” is the “only possible interpretation according to the principles of Catholic theology”.

“Outside this sole orthodox interpretation unfortunately exists a heretical interpretation, that is, a hermeneutic of rupture, [found] both on the progressive front and on the traditionalist” side, the archbishop said.

What the two camps have in common, he said, is their rejection of the council: “The progressives in their wanting to leave it behind, as if it were a season to abandon in order to get to another Church, and the traditionalists in their not wanting to get there”, seeing the council as a Catholic “winter”.

A “Council presided over by the successor of Peter as head of the visible Church” is the “highest expression” of the Magisterium, he said, to be regarded as part of “an indissoluble whole”, along with Scripture and 2,000 years of tradition.

The doctrinal chief’s remarks were published in the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, to present the seventh volume of The Complete Works of Joseph Ratzinger. The volume collects both published and unpublished notes, speeches, interviews and texts written or given by the future pope in the period shortly before, during and just after Vatican II.

Archbishop Müller specified that by “continuity” Pope Benedict meant a “permanent correspondence with the origin, not an adaption of whatever has been, which also can lead the wrong way”.

The term “aggiornamento” or updating – one of the watchwords of the Council – “does not mean the secularisation of the faith, which would lead to its dissolution”, but a “making present” of the message of Jesus Christ, he said.

This “making present” is the “reform necessary for every era in constant fidelity to the whole Christ”, he said.

“The tradition of apostolic origin continues in the Church with help from the Holy Spirit,” he said, and leads to greater understanding through contemplation and study, intelligence garnered from a deeper experience of the spiritual, and preaching by those who through the “apostolic succession have received an assured charism of truth”.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TUSF2LYCZRN254TAO5E5XRNZI4 Robin L

    Raymond Brown is probably seminal on Cardinal Muller’s behalf. Brown showed that later developments in the Church’s teaching and practice can be seen to be in continuity and a development of the founding events of the Church, and so faithful to them.
    Both traditionalists and progressives look back to a pure origin that screens out both context and circumstances through which the Gospel is preached and the Christian life is lived by worship and witness. These polar extremes touch in, a frequently frenzied, utopia that represents the very rupture
    of which Cardinal Muller speaks. Blessed John Henry Newman would  recognize our situation
    Perhaps we need another Oxford Movement.

  • scary goat

    This is great news.  This papacy just gets better and better !   This will need a lot of following up on though.  The continuity needs clarifying and explaining so that there is no “wiggle room” .  There may be a comparatively small number of ultra-traditionalists who have taken exception to V II from the start, and they might be difficult to convince, but the rampaging liberal views are common and these seriously need to be addressed.  If the Vatican can show clearly how “reform in continuity” should be applied and put a stop to all the” liberal reformers” then they might have a chance of convincing the traditionalists.  The liberal trend has had too much sway for too long and it is not surprising that the traditionalists despair. Actually, IMHO, understanding “reform in continuity” is the only sensible answer, but the Vatican needs to “prove” that this can work. Allowing liberals to “run amok” adds fuel to the traditionalist position.  Solve the “liberal problem” and I think the majority of the the “traditional problem” will fall into place effortlessly.  Of course, there will always be dissenters at both extremes, that can’t be helped, but the “normal” mainstream needs to be stabilized.

    Thank God for Pope Benedict ! :)

  • Alexander VI

    Muller is simply wrong. If the documents of Vatican 2 had been written 100 years ago (eg the decree on ecumenism), it would have been condemned as heretical.

  • nytor

    Muller isn’t, yet, a cardinal.

  • Alan

    You are entitled to your view that Muller is wrong, but please then don’t criticise those who express doubt about other Church teachings.  As for your comment about ecumenism, I would simply suggest that such a condemnation 100 years ago would itself have been wrong.  You are implying that, where two teachings at different times appear contradictory, the earlier must be correct.  In this instance (ecumenism) the later is correct.  The same applies to the teaching on religious liberty: wrong in 1864, right 100 years later.

  • John McCarthy

    Thanks very much to the C.D.F. for that clarification.


    Goebbelesque spin.JohnMorrison SINNfEINj@hOTMAIL.COM

  • John Morrison


  • Kyntale

    In the June 27, 1990 issue of Osservatore Romano (p. 6), Ratzinger stated that the Church’s anti-modernist teachings were only valid for the time in which they were written and are now obsolete because their “details” are no longer valid. Ratzinger’s statement, however, amounts to asserting that modernism is no longer to be condemned. Also, it was Ratzinger who proudly declared that Gaudium et Spes was the “anti-syllabus,” meaning that it completely overturned the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX, precisely because Gaudium et Spes affirms all the errors that the Church condemned in the Syllabuus. Therefore, Ratzinger himself has repeatedly stated that Vatican II is a complete departure from the Church’s magisterium. This new hermeneutics of continuity rubbish is a weapon used to wage war on traditionalists–nothing more.

  • Joseluismaria

    What is a good example of this rupture?
    One that comes to mind is for many centruies going back to before to the first books of the OT, women were not allowed in the sanctuary during Mass. Not for the last 40 years, it is no longer require.
    That is rupture of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Is it not?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=522875025 Margaret Schaut

    This is no help and explains nothing. The “Great Apostasy” has absolutely occurred since V2, its fruits are terrible, and even protestants agree that the ‘reformed’ Catholic Church is more protestant than they are.  For those of us struggling with this issue, genuine clarification would be a huge blessing. As it is, this does nothing to help anyone.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=522875025 Margaret Schaut

    Further, calling Trads heretics actually means that everyone in the Church is a heretic. Trads point out the heresies of V2. Sedes point it out.  Now we hear that they themselves commit heresy.  Are we now in a position that anyone born & bred Catholic is a heretic?  We are all being turned into modern Pilates: “What is Truth?”  Unfortunately this time it is the Church herself doing it to us.  

  • Parasum

     Mueller is taking the usual tack, of trying to silence opposition by calling that view “heresy”. It’s foolish to do so, intellectually dishonest to try to prevent  views being heard that account for the facts, and extremely short-sighted, since the course of such an enquiry cannot be predicted, and could well be fruitful for the Church’s self-standing. He is not thinking as a theologian, but as a Vatican heavy.  There are too many reasons to think there is a a rupture for the idea to be dropped simply some authority in the Church is unable to tolerate discussion of the subject. People are going to discuss it anyway, whether that suits Rome or not – all he will succeed in doing is to drive the discussion underground, which is very bad for the Church: becausre the Church ought to be a forum in which theological issues  can be discussed freely, openly, & honestly for the good of us all. It’s immaterial whether this is a bright idea of his, or whether he is acting as the Pope’s sock-puppet – it’s a phenomenally stupid approach, regardless of who thought of it.

    Besides, it’s far too late – if Dom Basile Valuet O.S. B. can argue for 3,000 pages that there is no rupture in the Church’s doctrine regarding religious liberty,and distinguished theologians & other Catholics of unquestioned orthodoxy can make criticisms of the content of Vatican II & point out that there is a case to answer, this discussion cannot simply be treated as though it is not happening.  What he has a moral duty to do, is to provide a better answer to these questions  than those which finds heretical; any half-wit can bring down the guillotine on a discussion, but this man is supposed to be a Catholic theologian, and a pastor of souls – something better than silencing awkward questions is needed from him.

  • Parasum

    An Oxford Movement in the CC would be,or rather, is, impossible – Rome won’t tolerate anything that it can’t manage on its own terms. More fool it :(

  • Parasum

     “In the June 27, 1990 issue of Osservatore Romano (p. 6), Ratzinger stated
    that the Church’s anti-modernist teachings were only valid for the time
    in which they were written and are now obsolete because their “details”
    are no longer valid. Ratzinger’s statement, however, amounts to
    asserting that modernism is no longer to be condemned.”

    ## His position is intellectually suicidal – the logic of that position has to be allowed to apply to his own ideas too. They being his ideas, that logic does not apply. But ripping the Faith of the Church to pieces ? No big deal. And woe betide those who don’t swallow his nonsense as Gospel truth – they can expect no mercy.

  • Kevin

    What is the substance of your criticism, as opposed to writing “wrong” and “correct”?

  • Sweetjae

    Sedes point them out? Then why don’t you join them? Maybe the Old Catholics? The Conclavists perhaps? They all have the same pre-Vatican 2 tradition anyways.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    It is my own strongly-held view that this is just part of the Modernists’ attempt to preserve Vatican II, which has evidently been a disaster, from total demise, which of course its promoters see clearly, though they have not learned the lessons of it. 

    The new orthodoxy is that Vatican II cannot be questioned – which it is being, more and more openly, both by the laity and increasingly, by the clergy. This intervention seeks to close down the increasing clamour for a debate on the orthodoxy of certain elements of the Council 

    Yet, the Archbishop’s view can be said to fulfill St. Vincent of Lerins’ words when he wrote:”The Church of Christ, zealous and cautious guardian of the dogmas deposited with it, never changes any phase of them. It does not diminish them or add to them; it neither trims what seems necessary, nor grafts things superfluous; it neither gives up its own nor usurps what does not belong to it. But it devotes all its diligence to one aim: to treat tradition faithfully and wisely; to nurse and polish what from old times may have remained unshaped and unfinished; to consolidate and to strengthen what already was clear · and plain; and to guard what already was confirmed and defined. After all, what have the councils brought forth in their decrees but that what’ before was believed plainly and simply might from now on be believed more diligently; that what before was preached rather unconcernedly might be preached from now on more eagerly.” 

    However, many, many learned Catholics, both lay and clerical, think that Vatican II went further and has changed the substance of the Faith. Perhaps the best summing up of this view can be found in the magisterial “Iota Unum” of Romano Amerio.

    The trouble for the Archbishop is that the cat is already out of the bag. Not only are the laity and more and more clergy questioning Vatican II, but the Church has, indeed, already pronounced on it down the centuries (see quotes below, to which can be added hundreds of others). 

    Saying that the questioning of Vatican II is a heresy is an evident nonsense: Joseph Ratzinger, acting for John Paul II, ALREADY clarified one element of the Council in the CDF’s document “Dominus Iesus”. 

    Archbishop Muller is seeking to close any debate about issues the Pope has ALREADY said may be debated. There seems to be total chaos in the CDF and, indeed, throughout the Curia generally. For instance, some years ago the CDF in writing confirmed that attending an SSPX Mass does fulfill one’s Sunday Obligation; more recently it has said it does not. In such times of diabolical disorientation, as St. Vincent goes on to say below, STAY WITH THE FORMER TEACHING AND REJECT ALL INNOVATIONS.

    “Teach nothing new, but implant in the hearts of everyone those things which the fathers of venerable memory taught with a uniform preaching … Whence, we preach nothing except what we have received from our forefathers. In all things, therefore, both in the rule of faith in the observance of discipline, let the pattern of antiquity be observed.” – Pope St. Leo the Great, Father and Doctor of the Church.

    “‘One faith,’ St. Paul writes (Eph. 4:5). Hold most firmly that our faith is identical with that of the ancients. Deny this, and you dissolve the unity of the Church … We must hold this for certain, namely: that the faith of the people at the present day is one with the faith of the people in past centuries. Were this not true, then we would be in a different church than they were in and, literally, the Church would not be One.” – St. Thomas Aquinas.

    “I accept with sincere belief the doctrine of faith as handed down to us from the Apostles by the orthodox Fathers, always in the same sense and with the same interpretation.” – Pope St. Pius X.

    “The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but men of tradition.” – Pope St. Pius X.

    “The Church of Christ, zealous and cautious guardian of the dogmas deposited with it, never changes any phase of them. It does not diminish them or add to them; it neither trims what seems necessary now grafts things superfluous . . . but it devotes all its diligence to one aim: To treat tradition faithfully and wisely; to consolidate and to strengthen what already was clear; and to guard what already was confirmed and defined.” – St. Vincent de Lerins: Commonitoria (5th Century).

    “The true Church is also to be known from Her origin, which She derives under the law of grace from the Apostles; for Her doctrines are neither novel nor of recent origin, but were delivered of old by the Apostles and disseminated throughout the world.” – Catechism of the Council of Trent (16th Century).

    “For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Ages.” – First Vatican Council (1869-1870).

    “I vow … to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein.” – Coronation Oath of the Pope.

    “Therefore, heresy is from the Greek word meaning ‘choice’ . . . . But we are not permitted to believe whatever we choose, nor to choose whatever someone else has believed. We have the Apostles of God as authorities, who did not . . . choose what they would believe but faithfully transmitted the teachings of Christ. So, even if an angel from heaven should preach otherwise, he shall be called anathema. – St. Isidore, extraordinary Doctor of the Church and last of the great Latin Fathers: Etymologies (7th Century).

    “The day the Church abandons Her universal tongue will be the day before She returns to the Catecombs.” – Pope Pius XII (a few days before his death).

    “You are fortunate, you have remained in the Church through your faith. You held fast to the foundations of the faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. . . .In the present crisis, it is they who have broken away from it.” – St. Athanasius, champion of Christ’s Divinity, Doctor of Orthodoxy, Doctor of the Church, died 373 A. D.

    “No one, my beloved brethren, will ever prevail against your Faith. And we are confident that God will one day return our Churches to us.” – St. Athanasius.

    “What then shall the Catholic do if some portion of the Church detaches itself from communion of the universal Faith? What other choice can he make –  and if some new contagion attempts to poison, no longer a small part of the Church, but the whole Church at once, then his great concern will be to attach himself to antiquity (Tradition) which can no longer be led astray by any lying novelty.” – St. Vincent de Lerins.

    “Is it permitted for Catholics to be present at, or to take part in, conventions, gatherings, meetings, or societies of non-Catholics which aim to associate together under a single agreement everyone who, in any way, lays claim to the name of Christian? In the negative! … It is clear, therefore, why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics. There is one way in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering the return to the one true Church of Christ for those who are separated from Her.” – Pope Pius XI.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Just for once you are 100% right.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Agreed 100%.

  • rjt1

    In response to what Archbishop Müller said: Amen.

  • rjt1


  • Sweetjae

    Nonsense! Practices and Disciplines of the Church can change but NOT the Dogmas. You can not put the blame to a legit Council of the Church -V2 for all the bad fruits which in reality are wrong interpretations that are acted upon by the freewill and NOT in anyway related to the Teachings of V2. If one is going to follow the logic of Sedes and SSPX, then why not blame the Councils of Constance, Lateran and Florence that Martin Luther also had blamed for their novel ideas of Purgatory and Indulgences? We lost more than half of Europe, talking about the Great Apostasy!

    The baddest fruit is when one put interpretive authority on himself rather than the Pope, Magisterium and legit Councils of the Church, regardless if one belongs to liberal or ultra-traditionalist sects- that’s Modernism!

  • rjt1

    Agree about the liberal Catholicism: it is a sickness which I find unaccountable.

  • Sweetjae

    Pope’s position is not at all suicidal, in fact, it’s the SSPX, Sedes and yourslef are suicidal. Why? The last time I checked Scripture, Jesus Christ has choosen a guy named Peter and pointed to His Church as the final Interpretive Authority to any dispute. I didnt see your name though.

  • Sweetjae

    Ecumenism is of course not a Dogma but still a legit Teaching of the Church so as with Contraception, Stem cell, cloning, Genetic manipulation etc., do we have the right to refuse them???Besides de the fact that V2 contained some Dogmatic Constitution that by Canon Law, Scripture and Tradition a catholic must give their assent and obedience. Don’t believe these people who foment disunity and disobedience, whether from the Left or Right.

    Stick with Peter and the Church.

    By the way, the Council of Florence is an exellent example of true Ecumenism, where Pope Eugene invited the many Patriachs of the Orthodox churches to heal the rift dividing the East and the Western Churches.

  • Sweetjae

    St. Vincent de Lerins was actually referring to you and the SSPX! By obstinately adhering to your interpretive version of Tradition and Scripture apart from the Interpretive Authority of the Pope and Council of the Church.

    Beside the fact that what St. Lerins said is not an infallible teaching, substituting your logic, what does it separate one from just attaching himself to the Word of God (Bible Alone)?????

  • Sweetjae

    All your citations are true but wrongly used. Well, no surprised, even Martin Luther, Calvin etc. have used and cited the Scripture to prove the Catholic Church is wrong.

  • Sweetjae

    Martin Luther and Bp. Williamson also said that!

  • Sweetjae

    The “religious liberty” that was condemned by past Popes is NOT the same Religious Liberty that VII and the past 5 Pontiffs have been teaching. This is where the Sedes and SSPX had it all wrong. They didnt distinguish between the two. As there is false ecumenism there is also a true Ecumenism (Council of Florence)…..like false repentance from true repentance of heart.

  • http://twitter.com/AdorationServe Adoration Servants

    The archbishop very nicely summarized this.  Pope Paul VI also did in his letter to Archbishop Lefebvre 36 years ago but with more detail available here –> http://www.adorationservants.org/cg/lefebvre.htm
    Also by the way there is a difference between heresy and schism.

  • scary goat

     Good quotes mr. C.

  • FRJ

    The man can say whatever he wants, it is a WINTER and the Church has been in a state of collapse since V2.

    Read the history and even the speeches of Paul VI at the time – stupid false optimism and making V2 into a predetermined success – then you will see that the hermeneutic of rupture didn’t come out of thin air.

  • Mendezjb

    I’m still waiting to hear what was dogmatically taught that we’re required to believe. Why is it that every other council taught with such clarity, and no one can answer that question? You can ask ten people what was taught and get fifteen answers. The pope (as ratzinger) had some interesting things to say about the innovation of and after VII.

  • Shannon Collins

    It is interesting that the good archbishop is even using the term “heresy.” When is the last time you’ve heard that from a Catholic prelate? Praying and dialoguing with non-Catholics and viewing them as intimate friends in a somewhat imperfect communion with the Catholic Church is a proper outreach I guess, but labeling your own Traditional Catholic flock as heretics is seen as necessary for sustaining communion. It sounds so unpastoral. 

  • NewbieJames

    What about the stance that Vat. II is ambiguous?  Or that it was a failed Council, like other councils?

  • NewbieJames

     Refuse “them”?  Refuse what?  The argument against Vat. II is that it is dangerously ambiguous.  The results are visible to anyone that has eyes.  It was a failed council.  It’s past time to abandon it.

  • NewbieJames

     Try it this way.  For 1900 years, the teaching on ecumenism would have been called heresy.

  • Nat_ons

    You are sadly mistaken, but perhaps excusably so – given the outrageous hype set out over the past 50 years by radicals and traditionists (not traditonalist, but those who make their own taste in ‘tradition’ the sole guide to truth).

    If I understand His Grace, it is the superstitious elevation of taste into the position of truth – so common to both radicals and traditionists – that must be seen for what it is: heresy.

    Look at the teaching of the popes on the oikumene of Christian faith in the church catholic over the last 150 years to see what he means.

    “Moreover, if We are to speak of Christian issues, the Greek practice of the sacraments has always been approved by Us: in the ceremonies and sacred rites which Greece takes care to preserve spotless, as they have been received from their ancestors, We have always paid reverence to this image of ancient custom and majesty joined with variety. And since it is both right and expedient that these rites should remain as incorrupt as they are, We have restored to its original plan and pristine form the Roman College, named after Athanasius the Great, for students of the Greek rite. Likewise the reverence due to the Fathers and Doctors which Greece has produced, and they were by God’s benevolence many and great, has only increased with time. Practically from the beginning of Our Pontificate, We have determined to give greater honor to Cyril and Methodius. It has been Our desire, led by devotion, to make better known from east to west the virtues and deeds of both these men so that they, deserving of a universal Catholic name, may be more reverently cherished by Catholics everywhere.” Leo XIII, Urbanitatis Veteris, 2.

    This generous embracing of the whole not mere parts of the Faith is the proper Catholic understanding of ‘oecumenism’: benevolence.

    No confusion of rites with wrongs there, rather an insistance on the truths all under Christ’s name are called to share .. not least in the practice of the sacraments .

    Benedict XVI, as awesome as ever, has shown how this generous, benevolent, spotless devotion to the Household of God can be applied practically without sowing relativism or promoting vain ideology.

  • http://twitter.com/AdorationServe Adoration Servants

    Thomas Aquinas (or Augustine) said the “heretics” that were most pious were the most danderous and needed to be dealt with the most aggressively, because those are the ones that lure good Catholics from the faith.  Satan would love nothing better that to see Sedevacantist schismatic churches and antiVaticanII fringes grow.  I have heard myself things like “Come to our church for Latin Mass.  We are all holy there.”  Yeah right.

  • danandsis

    Whatever the intent of Vatican ll, be it modernization or other changes felt necessary, it obviously has  been sabotaged with the undesirable results apparent to anyone willing to face facts.   

  • Jack Isaacks

    \Mueller is taking the usual tack, of trying to silence opposition by calling that view “heresy”.\

    Traditionalists, of course NEVER use this technique, do they?

    My understanding is that every council is supposed to be understood in the light of previous ones.

  • JabbaPapa

    Christianity has always provided some ambiguous teachings, so the first is a non-problem.

    The second is heretical.

  • JabbaPapa

    Really, all you need to do is look at the detail in the texts of the four dogmatic constitutions.

    Invariably, where they describe what is required of our Faith, the sentences in question will include such phrase as “Catholics believe that …” or “It is the teaching of our Church that…” or “XYZ *is* …” or other such firm declaratives of indisputable truthfulness.

    As in any other doctrinal documents, including those of *many* earlier Councils, any explanatory or discursive or more theoretical statements not including such declarations of truth should be viewed as being more pastoral and therefore debatable in their nature.

  • JabbaPapa

    I’m *SO* glad that someone of Authority in the Curia has finally just out and said this.

    Something that should have been done *decades* ago …

  • Sweetjae

    So if the text is clear (vast majority) we must accept and assent, if the text (some) are ambigious whether it says X or Y, then it must interpreted in the light of Scripture and Tradition.

    The Holy Bible also contains some very ambigious texts (Mariology, Infusion by Grace, etc) but we don’t blame it for being the cause of havoc and chaos, do we?

  • JabbaPapa

    Archbishop Muller is seeking to close any debate about issues the Pope has ALREADY said may be debated

    This accusation appears to be completely unfounded, Ben.

    WHERE does he say that debate about Vatican II should come to an end ?

    For instance, some years ago the CDF in writing confirmed that attending an SSPX Mass does fulfill one’s Sunday Obligation; more recently it has said it does not

    … You neglect to mention that in each case the question referred to the specific Sunday obligations of this and that particular individual, and this or that specific SSPX Church.

    Also, IIRC, the only time the CDF has answered that question in the negative, it turned out that it was NOT in fact a SSPX chapel in the first place ; and the latest answer provided some weeks ago simply reiterated the complexity of the most proper answer to that question, without resolving that complexity, but nevertheless implying quite strongly that this is a question to be resolved by the Pope after further examination thereof.

    Apart from that, most of your quotes do not belong to the Deposit of the Faith ; and of those that do, nothing in them is contradictory of the Second Vatican Council as far as I can see.

  • Sweetjae

    Spot on! Bravo!

  • aearon43

    No surprise that this article has brought out all the “trads” and their explanations of how they’re more Catholic than the pope. I guess it’s really really bad when liberals oppose the hierarchy on, say, women’s ordination. But we’re supposed to think that opposing the hierarchy is perfectly okay when “trads” do it. Because OF COURSE all Lutherans and Jews are going straight to Hell, right, “trads”??

  • JabbaPapa

    WHERE are Traditional Catholics described as “heretics” ?

    You are misinterpreting the teaching.