/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>808412

have you done any actual research, such as talking to a priest?

>>808412

I'm sorry to hear you're struggling anon. Are there any cases in particular you find contradictory or confusing? Myself, I was very materialistic and secular before finding faith and one by one my questions were answered the deeper I looked and the more I prayed to God for help in understanding.

>>808414

I don't quite understand what you mean by "actual" research. I'm referring to what most people mean by research. I've read extensively on the religion, watched debates and lectures, attended various masses, discussed it at length with members and non-members of the religion etc.

I spoke to a Novus Ordo catholic priest a couple of times but never really was attending long enough to enter any sort of trad parish community permanently. I'm not going to start some sort reversion / conversion process when I don't even know what it is I believe on it.

>>808415

Thanks. Well it varies from denom to denom and religion to religion.

When it comes to Catholicism I see the churches teachings on religious liberty and ecumenism as being in direct opposition to prior teaching. Then there are statements from various popes and canonized saints which clearly constitute heresy/apostasy. I've tried to take all different mental gymnastics approaches to these problems. Takes like "canonizations aren't infallible, vatican ii was just a pastoral council, popes can have supplied jurisdiction if they're heretical, or heresy requires formal censure and judgment by authority to be manifest, one doesn't have to follow the ordinary magisterium of the church because it contradicts tradition" but none of this holds up to scrutiny or the way the church historically operated. Its all sophistry to get around the substantial changes after vatican ii

Then I looked into orthodoxy for a time but with the council of florence and their democratic ecclesiology and constant schisming and denial of the filioque (as well as a lot of aspects of its philosophy that I have problems with) I can't really make sense of that either.

Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide don't make any sense to me, I've always fallen on the Apostolic side of the argument.

Then there's Islam and other non-christian religions where there are obvious absurdities and other problems many of us would agree on here so I don't even need to go into it

I've bounced around all over the place, typically bouncing back to catholicism in a sort of cyclical way.

hot tip: every time you see Vatican II referenced just keep scrolling, it's always some schismatic dropping his spaghetti

>>808423

>I see the churches teachings on religious liberty and ecumenism as being in direct opposition to prior teaching.

That is true. However, the Church has the right to change these teachings. Even Leo XIII said that religious liberty is okay if it is necessary for peace. Ecumenism, as we have today, is a total disaster. We certainly are in uncharted waters after V2.

You know what the thing is with V2? The council itself didn't really say certain things, but somehow it still served as a starting point for all these modernist shenanigans. Benedict XVI I think has the most realistic interpretation of the council: interpret it in according to the tradition, the council did not go against tradition. Maybe look into some of his writings.

>>808430

I sympathize with you friend, it makes me question the religion as a whole.

Every single pope since VII has been questionable which is part of the problem too, its not just "one bad pope" at all or I'd convert in an instant. The church has been radically transformed and its barred me from joining because I don't really find the sede position tenable, although I'm still trying to reason it out

>>808431

What would a pope have to do for you to think he's a heretic/antipope? Why is it out of the question in your mind?

>>808433

Vatican II goes so far as to argue that there's a right to religious liberty which flies in the face of prior teaching. Another example of direct contradiction is for example of the teachings on jews. You get "jews are reprobat" in previous teaching. You get "jews are not reprobat" in VII teaching. It violates the law of non-contradiction. I wish it was true that the Church "has a right to change these teachings" but it doesn't. What's laid down is laid down and cannot be changed. That's reserved for superficial accidental matters, not doctrine.

We can strip down the church to the point where the only infallible teachings are when the pope says abracadabra first but this just simply isn't the case, ordinary magisterium was always seen as binding and any papal definition on faith and morals was as well. Not just when he uses the words "ex cathedra" explicitly either.

Not to mention there are a plethora of quotes which contradict these ideas in previous councils that no catholic questions is infallible. The Council does go against tradition and that's my whole problem with it. I could go fetch quotes and probably will when I wake up tomorrow but this has been my whole issue the whole time. I can fetch even more quotes from the popes themselves that any honest person will admit constitute apostasy from the Roman Catholic Faith.

The case for the sedevacantist position is much stronger and is in line with what catholics actually believed prior to vii, not a series of mental gymnastics attempting to justify the unjustifiable.

My only issue is I think sedevacantism is ridiculously. It intuitively makes no sense although I think its logically follows from the crisis in the modern church

>>808442

pardon the typos, I'm falling asleep, and will be on later to try to sort more of this stuff out

Thanks for the responses so far everyone, God bless.

So be a Vox Day style Bible Nondenominationalist or a Justin Martyr style Philosophical Christian or join Orthodoxy if you don't like VII, the Immaculate Conception as dogma, or priestly celibacy, or the question of whether Francis is pope or within the mainstream.

>>808431

>Please pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, nothing to see here

>>808442

>the Church "has a right to change these teachings" but it doesn't

What I was referring to was that it has the right to change the behavior towards those outside the Church. It certainly does not have the right to call Jews, atheists and heretics saved or having a significant chance to be saved. I am well aware of the quotes, I know of Pius XI encyclical on ecumenism, I know what Gregory XVI said in his encyclicals too.

I struggle with V2 as well. It was a pastoral council, the first and only of its kind, no one has any idea how actually binding it is. It's a huge, huge mess and it would be the best for the Church to roll up those documents and throw them out the window.

Study this, it might help you, it does make interesting points

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/shawn.html

>>808442

Oh, I recommend this part, it touches on ecumenism a lot

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/treatise10.html

>>808442

>What would a pope have to do for you to think he's a heretic/antipope?

the Church would have to declare it, and move to depose the Pope.

>Why is it out of the question in your mind?

Because we are still beholden to the hierarchy God had in mind, it isn't up to the milkmaids or the chimney-sweeps to decide theological matter, much less for them to decide who is Pope or not.

>>808447

jews atheists and heretics cannot be saved under their false religions, however, if the holy spirit were to baptize these people, they would then become catholic no? In which we would be dealing with ex-jew, or ex-atheist, or ex-heretic who was being saved by his now catholic faith. This is how those (currently) outside the church are saved, and those who have invincible ignorance are saved, that are not in membership of the visible church.

There is still no salvation outside the church, but there are those who used to be outside the church, who entered the church who were saved via baptism of spirit. The big takeaway is that God actually can save whom he wants to save, and there are no words he has stated that binds him in such a way that makes him unable to do so. And of course it is God who is saving us, water may have significant symbolic value (and parralels with the ot), but in the end water is just water, and it is God, not the water that is saving us. This is not to say it is not necessary for ordinary baptisms, but be reasonable with it.

Baptism of spirit (aka baptism of desire) is in fact a traditional catholic belief, no matter how much the diamond brothers screech otherwise. They even admit it is supported by most theologians (with them saying "fallible" theologians stating that it exists). The problem with feenyites like diamond brothers, is that while there are many saints who have said that there is a baptism of desire and of blood, no saints (to my knowledge) have went out of their way to state that you cannot be saved by bod, or bob. How then, can rejecting bod/bob possibly be called an orthodox catholic belief? feeny was right to be treated the way he was - like a heretic, as you can quite intuitively tell it is heresy.

The most damning thing I can think of against this no salvation outside the water thinking is that the old testament saints were saved, even though they had never been baptized with water into the catholic faith. It's important to understand that water is something that exist in the physical realm, and the spirit is not a part of physics. How then, are you supposed to baptize a spirit? The water would not be able to touch them! And if the old testament saints were waiting in limbo as they were, as spirits, how then could they possibly have been baptized with water? It is because they were not baptized with water, but with the spirit. Once you realize that feenyism has problems it can't answer, sedevacantism falls apart.

I've come to realize I became a sede because I was convinced that feenyism was a true and traditional teaching, and seeing as the church preached against it, it meant that the church was a counter church. I was convinced of heresy, plain and simple. I wish I had resisted it better, more cleverly, read the books the diamond brothers were referencing so I could see for myself if they were bullshitters (because the toughest part is you know no one is has written a refutation of his arguments, they are too obscure and arcane to get into, so you have to take his word for it. I never considered reading the books to discern for myself, though I did attempt reading some of the councils).

Sedevacantsm is a second nu-orthodox church, schisming over what they consider to be true tradition, except worse because unlike the ordodogs, they don't even have any legitimate clergy or apostolic succession, and schism with eachother like prots.

>>808520

>water may have significant symbolic value

sorry I would like to rephrase that, as I don't mean to degrade baptism, or water. Water is for an ordinary baptism essential if you wish the baptism to work, it is not merely symbolic. However a baptism of spirit (extraordinary form of baptism) does not require water, and so in this sense, water is not essential.

to me, something that convinces me that there is a baptism of spirit, because of the trinity. God revealed to me that the holy spirit had his side pierced and died along with Jesus, for whatever Jesus does, so does the father (and holy spirit) do. So when Jesus was crucified, all of God was crucified. What then is there to stop a baptism of the holy spirit from saving someone? It has the sacrifice of the cross, it lacks nothing. John 3:5 cannot be taken to extremes if we know the ot saints were not baptized.

Realize that Vatican II was legitimate, and that everything will work out in the end. Put your faith in Christ and his promise, and work out your salvation. It's not complicated, ignore all the autism because Catholicism is the most obvious truth in this world. In the end the wolves and sheep will be separated, but until then it will always be a struggle

>>808442

>Sedevacantism

Aren't you just looking for a radical protestant church then?

>Crisis of the west, etc.

Hmm, this is one of those things where you need to put aside the past and what other people are doing and work towards the future. Yes, 99% of people are totally ensconced in the world, believe in nothing or are lukewarm, and will end up going to hell. However, be careful not to judge by appearances. People may seem to totally forget God who in fact are just trying to make the best of a completely Godless season in humanity's time on earth. With corruption on all sides many are biding their time and mostly silent about religion.

Yes, you could argue that the Catholic church is a smoldering wreck, that the entire clergy are communist infiltrators, seeking to destroy religion from within, but you have to remember that the tension within Christianity has always favoured a kind of liberality (not liberalism of course) which has always made the Church itself the footstool, the servant, the ignored Bride of Christ. So it is out-of-keeping with this character for any Christian denom to really assert itself against the face of the reigning ideology. We know after all that the Church will be triumphant, nor need we fear that crookedness will last forever. Every person who persecutes the Church, from within and from without, will be tormented before us for eternity. Why should we fear?

>>808447

It uses solemn language, uses the word dogmatic several times, and was originally referred to by Paul VI as extraordinary magisterium just like every other council, the pastoral council idea at this point seems like something people came up with to justify the absurd contradictions.

And yeah I'm not trying to act like you don't know what you're talking about or something, I'm just pointing out the areas that have held me up on all of it, I appreciate the responses, I'm sure of none of this

I've tried to make a lot of the same arguments you're making now, calling the sedes "un-nuanced" but there seems to be better precedent for their understanding of it.

>>808463

Thanks will check these out

as well as the above links

>>808454

This isn't true, a heretic ipso facto deposes himself from the church. If the pope said "I am not a catholic" tomorrow, or "I do not believe in the trinity" he would be deposed ipso facto before any judgement. consult St. Robert Bellarmine on this question as well as previous popes. The purpose of the Pope isn't to make reality bend to his will, he elevates certain truths to dogma, expounds on doctrines, defines things. If a pope teaches something is true it has always been true. If he deviates from previous teaching on a single issue he is definitionally not the pope, and this can be proven through logical argument, not just from authority.

>>808520

No one believed this historically. The quotes from the catechism of Trent are taken out of context and the arguments for something far different from Baptism of Desire as you're describing it were from St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus. They were both wrong, and their idea wasn't anything like this heretical notion of baptism of spirit. What St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas believed was that catechumens who died desiring baptism (and perhaps others I'm not sure) would go to purgatory for awhile and then be saved. It contradicts previous Church teachings and doesn't even make any sense because there's supposed to be one baptism that confers sanctifying grace and regeneration. If BOD fails to do that its not baptism and now we actually have two categorically different baptisms which is anathema.

the Church has repeatedly defined this one baptism by water as entrance to the Church, and that there is no salvation outside the Church. Now you can argue that there are edge cases to this but then we go back to my argument above. The idea that there are two categorically different baptisms is absurd.

The saints of the Old Testament went to Abraham's Bosom / The Limbo of the Fathers in Hell. This is where Jesus went when he descended to hell (none of them were in the gehenna part). Those who went there as a result of the Old Convenant before the establishment of the new Church at the Pentecost were saved. This is a pretty standard view

Yeah the Dimond brothers are autistic as winnie the pooh though, I just think they're right on the majority of these issues. I don't really have any interest in becoming a sedevacantist but I'm considering it.

>>808533

Its because the sacrament is the instrument by which sanctifying grace and regeneration are conferred, just like you can't receive communion spiritually. Now could God in theory save whoever he wants? Yes. Do we have any reason to assume he'd do that. No.

>>808543

The Church cannot contradict itself and that alone makes Vatican II problematic

>>808545

Sedes aren't protestants, any true catholic should recognize the possibility of sedevacantism, no one has ever claimed popes cant become heretics and sever themselves from the church.

My issue is if sedevacantism is literally true, this just becomes a wacky clown religion at that point, but if I'm being intellectually honest I can't refute their arguments.

>>808622

>This isn't true, a heretic ipso facto deposes himself from the church

There is a distinction between a "formal" heresy and a "material" heresy. You should actually research the canonical directions about any of this before you pretend you are either a Catholic theologian or a canon lawyer; moreover, only the Church can pose the question and act on it. Not you.

>>808628

OP here

This is absurd, a pope ipso facto deposes himself without judgemen if he holds any formally heretical position, that’s obviously what I mean by heresy.

The popes are not materially heretical, that’s not what material heresy is. Are you saying they’re ignorant of catholic doctrine? They’re experts in theology most of them. And all of them have been formally corrected multiple times.

This is just insane, again would you accept a pope if he taught Arianism? No, but it “wouldn’t be for you to decide there” now would it?

>>808633

>This is absurd, a pope ipso facto deposes himself without judgemen

that's an "ipso facto" circular argument, support your premises through canon law please

even the letter formally accusing Pope Francis of heresy acknowledges this isn't something for the laity to decide for themselves. the Church isn't a democracy.

>>808628

So if the "pope" came up to you, handed you a dagger and a baby and told you to sacrifice to the glory of Satan you'd just think "well, it's not for me to judge if he's a heretic, only the church can do that"?

>>808636

i asked for a canonical premise to your argument, not complete nonsense

>>808635

>>808638

Canon law doesn't deal with this question afaik. What he said there isn't complete nonsense, it reduces your position to absurdity.

And what I said is not a circular argument, its an argument questioning what follows from your premise.

Where in canon law does it say we need to submit to a formally heretical pope? Or how we deem a pope to be democratic. Your idea that cardinals or the lower members of the church hierarchy could judge a roman pontiff is democratic and absurd. The pope is deposed ipso facto when he holds any formally heretical belief.

>fa gg ots ruining the church, vatican 2 etc

Here's something to consider. Lets say the Catholic church fixes this in ten to twenty years time and becomes a radical trad hotspot. So you find yourself drawn to it again. Think of what Jesus would say to you - why didn't you believe in me during the hard times? Sure, he'll take you back, but do you want to get into the church only when it's easy?

>>808638

>Nonsense

It's reductio ad absurdum. That's the point.

>>808646

This would mean I should become a sede

I've been researching it more and I think there is a case for BOD for catechumens so I don't think most holy family monastery is correct with their clown creed that includes Feeneyism as an essential of the faith, but I would still just be an SSPV or CMRI or independent sede.

I guess its just such an absurd situation that it does make it difficult to believe in the validity of the Church and that's the issue, but yes if I had absolute faith I'd just become a sede

>>808638

>>808657

OP here, I agree with your reasoning, are you a sede or something else?

>>808710

>Traditionalist societies are exploding in terms of growth

Source?

>>808756

Take a look at the ICRSS, FSSP, IBP, and SSPX (canonical irregularity, have to say it so people don't start arguing).

>>808622

Seriously, read the links I posted. I honestly don't know how to refute the arguments there. V2 has to be read very, very carefully and in completely full context because it can easily be very ambiguous. I have to accept the hermeneutic of continuity, V2 must be interpreted as being in line with tradition.

For example, if you take Unitatis redintegratio and read this part only:

>In certain special circumstances, such as the prescribed prayers "for unity," and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. Such prayers in common are certainly an effective means of obtaining the grace of unity, and they are a true expression of the ties which still bind Catholics to their separated brethren. "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them". [9]

You can say bah that's scandalous, but immediately after the document says:

>Yet worship in common (communicatio in sacris) is not to be considered as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of Christian unity. There are two main principles governing the practice of such common worship: first, the bearing witness to the unity of the Church, and second, the sharing in the means of grace. Witness to the unity of the Church very generally forbids common worship to Christians, but the grace to be had from it sometimes commends this practice. The course to be adopted, with due regard to all the circumstances of time, place, and persons, is to be decided by local episcopal authority, unless otherwise provided for by the Bishops' Conference according to its statutes, or by the Holy See. [10]

>We must get to know the outlook of our separated brethren. To achieve this purpose, study is of necessity required, and this must be pursued with a sense of realism and good will. Catholics, who already have a proper grounding, need to acquire a more adequate understanding of the respective doctrines of our separated brethren, their history, their spiritual and liturgical life, their religious psychology and general background. Most valuable for this purpose are meetings of the two sides–especially for discussion of theological problems where each can treat with the other on an equal footing–provided that those who take part in them are truly competent and have the approval of the bishops. From such dialogue will emerge still more clearly what the situation of the Catholic Church really is. In this way too the outlook of our separated brethren will be better understood, and our own belief more aptly explained. [11]

I mean obviously, there is nothing scandalous here. And this is the main problem when people interpret V2. Read this, seriously, and the whole series

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/treatise10.html

>>808622

I don't know anything about Sedes versus Catholic then, but still, you should bear in mind that faith instructs us that anything that persecutes the Church will not prosper. This includes VII Bishops and Prelates who think first of being liberal over being Christian.

>>808710

>Traditionalist societies

What does it really mean to be traditional though? Are we talking about 16th century traditionalism? Or 1000 AD? 500AD? When Jesus Christ was ministering on Earth?

>>808412

Same boat anon.

I don't (or haven't found) a solution but just letting you know others have the same thoughts.

The person of Christ gives me peace through this still. Perhaps try praying more and reading the New Testament.

>>811093

I'm pretty sure that it means the pre-vatican ii and post trent time period. As if Jesus Christ did the Tridentine Latin Mass at the Last Supper.

>>811186

The Latin Mass goes back to Gregory the Great, growing from the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom. It is the Mass that sustained all the great Saints, and it prevents the litany of sacrilege present at many Novus Ordo Masses. The degradation of the Liturgy is the heart of the crisis within the Church.

>As if Jesus Christ did the Tridentine Latin Mass at the Last Supper.

Mass is not supposed to represent the Last Supper… Catholic Mass represents Calvary. In particular, ad orientum is simply a tradition from Apostolic times. Same with communion in the hand, early Christians that did this practice would have a veil over their hands when receiving communion, it was _never_ outright in the hand. Even if Jesus gave His Body to His Apostles that way, it does not give us the same same right to hold Eucharist, unlike the priest. Later, it was clearly understood that receiving on the tongue (while kneeling) should be exclusively practiced, as a sign of reverence. Even if Pope Paul VI decided that Mass was supposed to represent the Last Supper and not Calvary, there was simply no need to change those aspects (and what of the table!), or tolerate what goes on today. It's become an ecumenical Mass, plain and simple. And St Pius V codified the Latin Mass as the Mass of the Roman Rite - meaning, that no man, not even the Pope, could make the Latin Mass forbidden.

>>811093

Simply put, it means Catholic.

OP here

>>811093

>>811186

Its to delineate between how the Church operated before VII and the changes that occurred after. No one is saying that the Church never had any changes, the argument is that its strayed too much (some such as the SSPX or the Sedes say its strayed substantially enough to the point of error). There's a difference between accidental and substantial change, something that changes incidental or superficial components and something that changes essential or vital components.

>>811103

I was doing that for a bit but I don't think I can make sense of any of it.

You basically have 4 mutually exclusive positions (more or less) each of which claim to hold the catholic faith whole and inviolate and claims that their position can be arrived at via reason alone. The Novus Ordo, SSPX types, standard sedes, and the Feeneyite Sedes. Yet each is based in a subjective, assumption-laden interpretation of dogma and how expansive dogma is.

So the eternal fate of your soul comes down to a guessing game with no clear cut answer? Why would God design it that way? Why wouldn't there be some clear way of discerning between these options? If we just look at the SSPX and Sedes alone, each can appeal to their own documents and sources and assumptions about how expansive papal infallibility is (which has never been explicitly defined outside of the ambiguous statements in VI). People can't even agree on whether VII was extraordinary magisterium or not. Most Sedes think it is, John XXIII and Paul VI both said it was, and then Paul VI later said it wasn't and Benedict also affirmed this other position. It says in some of the documents things which indicate it could be either. Its entirely ambiguous.

So how do I hold the true Catholic Faith? By guessing?

At this point it has me doubtful of the religion as a whole, it doesn't really make any sense. I'm probably going to remain Christian but Catholicism doesn't seem like an option, and I'm probably just going to join the denom that appeals to me the most because discerning it in terms of scholasticism and absolute truth seems to lead to absurdities.

>>811409

The funniest part is mormonism was the exact denomination I was thinking. Either that or just becoming a baptist or something. Don't think I'll actually join either but each would solve this whole problem with the fact that each appeal to inspiration by the holy spirit for joining the religion (at the bottom of it all).

I've studied it a lot and mormonism definitely appeals to me the most on an aesthetic/superficial level, but I've never thought it was absolute universal truth or anything. Its basically paganized Christianity. It removes a lot of the harder doctrines/teachings. They're not too different from Jews in that sense

>>811323

i think that's what started liberal theology and the rejection of neo-scholasticism in the first place.

>>812132

Okay I wouldn't even disagree with you but what's the solution here. I've been thinking about it hard the past few days and just feel like I'm at an impasse with all of it

>>808773

the current prior of the carthusian's brother is sspx. dont know if lassus is known outside of france