I have evolved, don't think or believe as I did years ago RE Christianity, etc..

[Simon_Templar]

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.

 

[Stephen3141]

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.

I think that you'e too much into conspiracy theories.

A basic principle is that the sacraments are valid, even though
an individual priest is not orthodox.

I would stick the to core Christian doctrines, such as the Nicene
Creed.

 

[discombobulated1]

Actually you accused Catholics of attacking you, and I pointed out you had called the pope a heretic, and you said the last six popes were not valid popes. It's all a matter of perspective, I pointed out that perhaps they thought you had attacked them. Let's discuss.

You say that it's "a little bit of a lie" (not the best words for a civil discussion) about it being nice to hear the mass in your own language and that missals were available. I've been to hundreds of masses said in Latin. It is EXTREMELY difficult to follow along word by word, with the priest saying words fast, not always audible. I make an effort to hear masses in English when I travel, for the sake of awareness and participation. When I was went to a German mass in Germany I lost my place a number of times. So it was a wonderful Vatican II reform for vernacular language so the people can better understand and participate. Realize that the only reason the mass in Europe switched from Greek to Latin was that Latin had become the language of the people. There are some beautiful hymns in Latin that are best sung in Latin, just last night started at the end of the mass we had adoration and one of the popular hymns was sung, and I appreciate the beauty.

It's funny u mention how I worded that, which today (after getting sleep, etc), I myself find ODD... LOL. I had said something was a bit of a lie. Well, I would have said it was a lie or untruth, but I don't know if it's acceptable to say that here? I used to be on this forum where you could say virtually anything, short of a threat directed at another poster. I have to say, I both liked and disliked that. I could have done w/ o the obscenities! I could have done without the extreme hate some posters exhibited. But I am big on not having censorship. If I had run the forum, I would have gotten on people's cases about the obscenity and even some of the snark, but wouldn't ban anyone unless --maybe -- temporarily... they just went on and on with it.

Anyhow, I hate to say this but I can't remember much else you said in this post... LOL

sorry about that...

 

[discombobulated1]

I think that you'e too much into conspiracy theories.

A basic principle is that the sacraments are valid, even though
an individual priest is not orthodox.

I would stick the to core Christian doctrines, such as the Nicene
Creed.

there is nothing wrong with a conspiracy theory if it is based on facts.

the term Conspiracy theory gets a bad name, but that's usually because someone doesn't like it that others are onto their nefarious conspiracies.. which are not exactly merely theoretical

 

[discombobulated1]

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.

I read this far, couldn't continue because I had many thoughts to try to remember.

I understand what you're saying but it is people who are UN-informed who say this (mostly). If someone like Mario Derksen (well-educated Sedevacantist) came to the conclusions you have here, then I would definitely pay attention. He knows more about the modern history of the Church than anyone I know of.

But I msyelf have read many books and articles on modern history of the Church. I have also read books on ancient Church history. I like to read. I especially like learning about my Church.

Yes, there have been bad times in the Church, bad popes. Everyone knows that. But this is different, this era we are in. Never b4 did anyone accuse anti-Catholics of such things as: murdering the pope (JP I) so that the anti-Catholics could run the Church. But surely you know about how humans are lustful for power and influence? And people have hated the Church since Day One. Jesus said we would be hatedby all because of Him..

Anyway, I'll leave things @ that for now

 

[discombobulated1]

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.

I don't consider theSedevacantists schismatic, at least not by the definition I am going by. It is technically, the novus ordo Church that is in schism. They threw out the Old Church and there is NO old or new Church. There is supposed to be ONE Church. Jesus knew we only needed ONE. Who knows better than God himself that having too many so called churches is a bad thing? God is not into chaos

 

[discombobulated1]

The RCC isn't divided into 3 parts; it is One - "one, holy and catholic". The SSPX + Sed's are sub-cultures within the RCC, not seperate churches.

If Christ abandoned His Bride, 5 Popes ago...is He even Christ? What sort of saviour is He if

Who saidChrist abandoned the Church?

I did not say that, certainly. So I can't really follow what you are getting at and if you don't get my words correct, then

just another reason I cannot respond

 

[discombobulated1]

I do not know much about this, so I'll let you continue your discussion with other CF members.

Well, you should know about the Real Presence of Christ. It is easy to learn about Christ through the words of Scirpture as most Protestants do and that is about all they do because they don't have this Real Presence that abides in Catholic Churches 24/7

Jesus said He would be with us always, until the end: Mt 28:20

I greatly miss the Real Presence and it is because of all the evil in the CatholicChurch (a blanket statement, I know...) that I do not spend much time there anymore. It is a very long story why I do not. That's not to say I will not seek out another Church where I can--hopefully-- be in that Real Presence. But... again, it is (not only a long but) unusual story.

 

[AlexB23]

Well, you should know about the Real Presence of Christ. It is easy to learn about Christ through the words of Scirpture as most Protestants do and that is about all they do because they don't have this Real Presence that abides in Catholic Churches 24/7

Jesus said He would be with us always, until the end: Mt 28:20

I greatly miss the Real Presence and it is because of all the evil in the CatholicChurch (a blanket statement, I know...) that I do not spend much time there anymore. It is a very long story why I do not. That's not to say I will not seek out another Church where I can--hopefully-- be in that Real Presence. But... again, it is (not only a long but) unusual story.

Christ is in the Eucharist.

 

[Simon_Templar]

I read this far, couldn't continue because I had many thoughts to try to remember.

I understand what you're saying but it is people who are UN-informed who say this (mostly). If someone like Mario Derksen (well-educated Sedevacantist) came to the conclusions you have here, then I would definitely pay attention. He knows more about the modern history of the Church than anyone I know of.

But I msyelf have read many books and articles on modern history of the Church. I have also read books on ancient Church history. I like to read. I especially like learning about my Church.

Yes, there have been bad times in the Church, bad popes. Everyone knows that. But this is different, this era we are in. Never b4 did anyone accuse anti-Catholics of such things as: murdering the pope (JP I) so that the anti-Catholics could run the Church. But surely you know about how humans are lustful for power and influence? And people have hated the Church since Day One. Jesus said we would be hatedby all because of Him..

Anyway, I'll leave things @ that for now

Everything I said about Heresy and Schism in that post is taken directly from St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica.
Specifically if you would like to read it for yourself, it is question 39.

What I said about Heresy in the Church in the past is a matter of well-known historical record. Read up on the Arian Controversy for one example.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Perhaps you should focus on spiritual faith rather than religion?

Faith, is a gift from God, it is His revelation of Himself, however that may happen.

Religion, is the response to faith.

Read, spiritual books like The Story of A Soul, or St John of the Cross.

Either way, you can be a theologically expert, but bankrupt in faith. Pope Francis and other
Pope's have warned about this.

In short, remain Christ centered and all you'll receive what He wills for you to grow.

 

[discombobulated1]

Christ is in the Eucharist.

So you know something about Catholicism. Were you raised Catholic?

I was, but not devoutly. In any case, the Sedevacantist Catholics say the host is not confected in the novus ordo Church (because no valid priesthood), but one time I asked a Sede:

If that is so, how is it the Real presence is there?

He said that the Real Presence is NOT.

But I know that is not true. I've been to many, many NO Churches (before I "knew better.") And now, even after I know more, I will not say that the RP is not in the NO Churches. . He is there in at least some of them.

The BAD thing, though... is that the presence of Satan is also there.

And is it ever NASTY! It is worse than people may think...

 

[discombobulated1]

Perhaps you should focus on spiritual faith rather than religion?

Faith, is a gift from God, it is His revelation of Himself, however that may happen.

Religion, is the response to faith.

Read, spiritual books like The Story of A Soul, or St John of the Cross.

Either way, you can be a theologically expert, but bankrupt in faith. Pope Francis and other
Pope's have warned about this.

In short, remain Christ centered and all you'll receive what He wills for you to grow.

Francis is not real. And we haven't had a valid pope since 1958.

Even though I don't dislike the novus ordo as much as a lot of Sedevacantists do, I know this is so... re the popes

Everything I said about Heresy and Schism in that post is taken directly from St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica.
Specifically if you would like to read it for yourself, it is question 39.

What I said about Heresy in the Church in the past is a matter of well-known historical record. Read up on the Arian Controversy for one example.

I know about the Arian controversy. I know about heresy in the Church in history.

I am more focused on modern history because it is the most bizarre... by far

 

[FireDragon76]

I've found millions of answers, but there really is no answer to the question of Why can't the Catholic Church be ONE as Christ intended? ...

The Catholic Church is not a denomination. It is THE Church Christ founded. Extant writings indicate the word Catholic was used for His Church as early as 107 AD. That's not necessarily the soonest it was called that (the word means Universal), but that's what we have w/ the documents that have survived 2000+ years (or not survived). People are "informal" members of the Church even if not officially Catholic, insofar as they agree with the most important dogmas/doctrines taught by Christ's original Church.

Differences in spirituality do not equal to differences in essentials. An institution as big as the Catholic Church takes time and deliberation to sort out the details. That can seem frustrating, but it's the nature of institutions that have endured so long.

 

[RileyG]

I've found millions of answers, but there really is no answer to the question of Why can't the Catholic Church be ONE as Christ intended? I believe it is in John, Chapter 17 where Jesus prayed right b4 the Crucifixion that His people would be ONE. Yes, we know humans are sinners and can be exceedingly divisive (I hate when Republicans are that... while the left are united in their evil [baby killing, country-destroying...]). I think Jesus wanted better for His followers.

The Catholic Church is not a denomination. It is THE Church Christ founded. Extant writings indicate the word Catholic was used for His Church as early as 107 AD. That's not necessarily the soonest it was called that (the word means Universal), but that's what we have w/ the documents that have survived 2000+ years (or not survived). People are "informal" members of the Church even if not officially Catholic, insofar as they agree with the most important dogmas/doctrines taught by Christ's original Church.

Stay with Rome. Find a faithful traditional Latin Mass, receive confession and the Eucharist regularly.

Christ will never abandon his Church.

 

[RileyG]

Francis is not real. And we haven't had a valid pope since 1958.

Even though I don't dislike the novus ordo as much as a lot of Sedevacantists do, I know this is so... re the popes

I know about the Arian controversy. I know about heresy in the Church in history.

I am more focused on modern history because it is the most bizarre... by far

Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail. Can God lie?

 

[JSRG]

I read this far, couldn't continue because I had many thoughts to try to remember.

I understand what you're saying but it is people who are UN-informed who say this (mostly). If someone like Mario Derksen (well-educated Sedevacantist) came to the conclusions you have here, then I would definitely pay attention. He knows more about the modern history of the Church than anyone I know of.

Have you ever looked at any of the criticisms of his claims, most specifically the claims that individual Catholics can just decide for themselves who the pope is? For example:

The True Meaning of Bellarmine’s Ipso Facto Loss of Office Theory for a Heretical Pope

Fr. Kramer, Sedevacantism, Siscoe Salza, Novus Ordo Watch, Mario Derksen, John Lane

www.trueorfalsepope.com

It's lengthy, but has a lot of interesting information. There is, for the record, a follow-up article here which is a response to someone else's criticisms of the original article.

 

[discombobulated1]

Differences in spirituality do not equal to differences in essentials. An institution as big as the Catholic Church takes time and deliberation to sort out the details. That can seem frustrating, but it's the nature of institutions that have endured so long.

True, but these days things... again, things are bizarre.

Most Catholics don't seem to know what I know about modern history. They likely would argue with me if they heard it. I feel alone a lot of the time, misunderstood, but oh well. God understands me perfectly..

 

[discombobulated1]

Have you ever looked at any of the criticisms of his claims, most specifically the claims that individual Catholics can just decide for themselves who the pope is? For example:

The True Meaning of Bellarmine’s Ipso Facto Loss of Office Theory for a Heretical Pope

Fr. Kramer, Sedevacantism, Siscoe Salza, Novus Ordo Watch, Mario Derksen, John Lane

www.trueorfalsepope.com

It's lengthy, but has a lot of interesting information. There is, for the record, a follow-up article here which is a response to someone else's criticisms of the original article.

Thank you SO much. This is something I.. well, I think I have been looking for for quite some time. I haven't read it yet, so not sure, but

Well, as I've said here, the Sedes don't believe the Eucharist in the NO Churches are really Eucharist (consecrated hosts), and yet I have felt the Real Presence of Christ in NO Churches.

I do know that consecration does not depend on the priest. But then there's the fact he's supposed to be properly ordained. It is not all perfectly clear to me, to be certain.. I'm going to copy what you've provided and read it when I am not distracted. Thanks

 

[discombobulated1]

Have you ever looked at any of the criticisms of his claims, most specifically the claims that individual Catholics can just decide for themselves who the pope is? For example:

The True Meaning of Bellarmine’s Ipso Facto Loss of Office Theory for a Heretical Pope

Fr. Kramer, Sedevacantism, Siscoe Salza, Novus Ordo Watch, Mario Derksen, John Lane

www.trueorfalsepope.com

It's lengthy, but has a lot of interesting information. There is, for the record, a follow-up article here which is a response to someone else's criticisms of the original article.

(I just now noticed that reference to a follow up article. Thanks again.)

I have read through maybe 1/4 of that info you gave me. I must have been very tired and/or distracted the first time I tried to read it because I was getting lost.. LONG sentences, etc, but today I was getting it fairly well. It (strangely) doesn't help that it is somewhat repetitious, but in any case, I am getting the answers I have been looking for. (I used to call those answers "pieces of the puzzle that are missing.")

The thing is, though, I am not so sure I am dissuaded (yet) from Derksen's position. but I am not done reading.

I found out in the material that some Sedes go back to the middle ages to find the last true pope! I always thought it was Pope Pius XII and that Sedes agreed on that. Still, I don't think most Sedes go back that far. I'm wondering if you have ever been Sede?

So far it looks like I've learned:

1) An (a?) heretical pope would pretty much have to leave the Church before he could be declared by the Cardinals/bishops a heretic and replaced

2) They can't replace him if he is not a notorious heretic, which is strictly defined. Francis would pretty much have to say publicly, to the whole world, that he didn't believe, say, in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist or some other DOGMA (assuming that IS dogma. I would think that it is?).

3) The author mentioned the teaching that "the first See is judged by no one." But that appears to mean: no human "judge"? So I am not sure exactly what the teaching is about the heretical pope who is seen as such by God himself... which I guess is what Derksen and other Sedes are saying

4) Whoever wrote this material you gave me calls Derksen a heretic! I thought that was over the line. I myself have found him to be rather rude and uncaring toward...those who disagree w/ him, but I never read anything heretical written by him.

So other than that, I am still putting the found puzzle-pieces into the puzzle board so I get the whole picture (if possible). I'm wondering where you are at in all this?