I have changed a lot in the last several years, which is not a shocker, I know. Most people do, but I have changed somewhat radically.
I once got deep into studying my Catholic faith.. not a bad idea at all. I recommend all Catholics do this. But the problem is, you have to be careful what your sources are. I happened to serendipitously run into a book written by the late archbishop Lefebvre, who whole heartedly disagreed with the changes of Vatican II and wrote books on this. Then from there I studied Sedevacantism, which I have no problem with, to speak of. However, it seems to me that most professional Sedes are more into mocking "new church" and Francis than they are into.. well, works of charity or what have you. I know I shouldn't even say this because I do not know these people well. I just know that I went to this site once that was run by Sedevacantists and all they ever seemed to post were articles or videos on how awful new church is. The thing is, though.. It really IS awful.
So what am I trying to say here? I don't know... I mean, I am just disturbed, is all. I feel confused because the Catholic Church is divided into 3 parts: novus ordo, SSPX and Sedevantists. I can't say I whole-heartedly endorse the NO (new) church, but on the other hand, I just don't believe that Jesus would allow His Church to utterly fail, as they seem to think, just because anti-Christs took over the buildings (1958). He said that He would never leave us (Mt 28:20) He said his Church would not fail (Mt 16:18).
I feel very alone and misunderstood a lot of the time. It seems that priests in the NO don't want to talk about V2 (and why would they? it doesn't make them look good). I liked a SSPX priest I confessed to years ago.. very good in confession, acted interested in what I was saying. A Sede priest I went to for confession was OK but didn't seem half as interested. Maybe I shouldn't have expected him to be like the SSPX priest, and I do realize that... OK, never mind. I was going to go into some other things but I'll leave things @ that for now.
Schism is worse than heresy.
A heretic is someone who genuinely believes a falsehood, and as such separates themselves from fellowship with the Church, because they believe differently they cannot be in true unity.
A schismatic is someone who believes fundamentally the same thing, but refuses to be in fellowship because they lack charity.
The Church has had many times of crisis in the past. There have been times when heresies ALMOST overwhelmed the Church (note the almost), there have been heretic popes, there have been wildly immoral popes, there have been times when monasteries were full of concubines etc.
People today have very little understanding of how bad things have gotten at various times in the past. Yet the Church survived them all, because the Church is under God's guidance and under the protection and leading of the Holy Spirit.
When people like the Sede's lose faith in the Church and break away, they are not losing faith in the Pope, or in Councils, but in God himself. Because it is God who upholds the Church and who appoints authorities etc.
the impulse to leave when you think that something has gone wrong, is fundamentally what defines Protestantism, thus the Sede's are Protestant in attitude at a fundamental level, even though they cling to traditional doctrines. Their fundamental belief is "I am right and the Church is wrong. Therefore I reject this church as false."
If you look at the lives of the saints (and at the Bible) there are MANY examples where the Church was wrong and the response of the saints was universally to speak the truth courageously, and then submit to the Church in humility, charity, and obedience as God's justly appointed authority, and wait for God to correct the Church's leaders.
You will never find a different response from any saint.
