im a new catholic and i see a lot of commentary on vatican 2 and how it was apostasy. i've read a lot about how the council contradicts previous councils like florence and how it wasn't dogmatic at all. if im free to reject it, what am i supposed to think of the 99.999% of catholics that believe it, and the liberals that basically teach the opposite of all dogmas?
New catholic
Jack Gray
Other urls found in this thread:
churchfathers.org
churchfathers.org
sspx.org
sspx.org
sspx.org
sspx.org
twitter.com
Luke Cooper
First and most important step: don't listen to schismatic garbage, instead put your trust in Christ's promise to preserve His Church.
Maybe one day you will be knowledgeable enough to understand the nuances of Catholic theology. But you are just a beginner now, and therefore easily influenced by people who give off the appearance of being learned in theology. Willfully reading their materials puts such a theologically inexperienced beginner in danger of falling into the mortal sin of schism. Therefore, at least now, avoid them. Back in the day, we even used to have something called the "Index of Prohibited Books", of books deemed dangerous to faith and morals that were under ordinary circumstances forbidden for lay Catholics to read; of course, false arguments presented in such books could be disproved by someone appropriately educated - but an uneducated beginner could be easily swayed by them. If you are tempted to schism or at least in significant danger of this, as you are based on your post, you ought to, for exactly this reason, avoid these websites.
Of course, I'm not saying you shouldn't develop your knowledge about God and the Church - indeed, actual historical and theological knowledge (as opposed to letting the schismatics give you the selected, often misrepresented, bits of theology and history to convince you) is a very effective weapon against schismatic temptations. Catholic Encyclopedia is a very good, detailed, pre-Vatican II so you don't have any fears related to this, source on Catholic history and theology, so I recommend it. What I'm saying is that you should avoid schismatic and schismatic-leaning sources for getting your knowledge, because you are needlessly putting your soul in mortal danger, and whatever good is there, can also be found in purer, better form in other sources that don't try to kill your soul.
God bless.
Joshua Cox
The way I see it, Vat II is just God's way to chastise His flock for the sins we as humans have commited in the past.
If I were you, I would continue in your RCIA education. If you really can't stand the Novus Ordo Mass than seek out a Tridentine Latin Mass, the orginal mass. Just make sure it is in communion with the Church. Just continue to have faith and pray the rosary everyday day preferably multiple times a day per San Padre Pio, but that is for those that can do it and ask The Queen of Israel to advocate for the Liberation of the Church from the smoke of satan.
Julian Perez
modern Catholicism in a nutshell
Nolan Hernandez
You are not free to reject it in fact no Catholic does. What we reject is the “Spirit of Vatican 2” group who came through and took advantage of the confusing and unclear language of Vatican 2 and used it as a vehicle to tear down the foundations of the Church
Norvus Ordo is still valid it is just a New Rite like Latin and Byzantine.
Priests are still valid.
The Sacraments are still valid.
The Pope is still valid.
Vatican 2 did not tell the laity to take communion in the hand.
Vatican 2 did not tell Churches to destroy the high altar, tear out the communion rails, and remove the statues of The Saints.
Welcome to the counter insurgentcy friend. You are joining the Church at the early stages of one of her greatest battles to show the Devil himself he can never prevail against holy mother Church.
Owen Richardson
Your average Cath "trad"
Joshua Robinson
The Index has been around for hundreds of years, and, to some degree at least, protected Catholics with only little knowledge about theology and history, who could be swayed by seemingly good (to such uneducated people) arguments put in the condemned books.
The point isn't "don't think about it", it's "don't think about it when there is serious danger that thinking about it will cause you to sin gravely".
Juan Torres
You don't need to be reading Sede material to come to the conclusion that the modern church is fubar. Noticing the differences between now and the world of the church fathers and early church history is more than enough to make one question the current state of affairs. It's not like the church fathers weren't blunt in speaking against heresy.
Xavier Kelly
As someone who is an FSSP guy (and loathes the uncharitable nature of Sedevacantists), I think that what you're saying is a bit dishonest. Sedes profess the Catholic faith and profess submission to the Holy Father (unlike the Orthodox/Protestants who do neither). They have reasons for questioning the legitimacy of the Vatican II papal claimants - reasons rooted in Catholic theology, whether you agree with their application or not. If they are mistaken, they are only materially in schism… no different than the Catholics who during the Great Western Schism sided with the wrong pope. Those too were materially in error but formally still Catholic. And yes, to declare there is no pope while one occupies the chair, can be and often is, an act of iniquity and source of scandal. I'm not denying that. But part of their bitter, hateful zeal is because of the way Catholics respond to them. Are they harmful to the traditional movement? I'd say yes. But I don't hate them.
Christopher Bailey
OP goes beyond merely criticising the state of the Church. True, it's bad, this is clear - this isn't the first time, there already were times in our history when the situation was bad.
The problem is with him being led to think by schismatic sources that the Church fell into apostasy, which is false and dangerous to his soul. The solution to this problem is to cut off its source, i.e. said schismatic sources. He will lose exactly nothing, because good, traditional information can be found in sources that don't mix this good, traditional information with schismatic lies.
If "thinking about the church" means "letting your view about the Church be dictated by schismatics", then of course it can lead to schism, which is a gravely evil sin indeed.
Joshua Stewart
He's clearly a staunch Novus Ordite that doesn't want to see the reality that we are living during the great falling away. It's a grim situation. All Sedes (that aren't the Dimond bros) say is that there is an objective doubt as to if the post-Vatican II papal claimants can remain Popes with everything contrary to Catholic dogmas they have done. We do not dogmatically proclaim or assume we have the authority to deny the Pope, nor do we say that people who think Francis is the Pope are non-Catholic. That's basically the Dimond bros position, and they are loons.
Caleb Richardson
May God console you! …What saddens you …is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises─but you have the apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle-the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?
True, the premises are good when the apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way …You are the ones who are happy: you who remain within the church by your faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.
No one, ever, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.
Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray.
Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.
Liam Morgan
Forgot to say this is a quote from St. Athanasius
Gabriel Walker
The reason why people are uncharitable to Sedes is because sedes in general know the faith quite a bit and their arguments are not easy for the lay Catholic to debunk. In fact no one really knows the answers to these questions. Did V2 contain errors? People don't have the authoritative answer to this, Cardinal Burke said that Nostra Atatate is "non dogmatic". His new declaration on errors basically said that the new Catechism promulgated by Pope Francis has an error in it, regarding the death penalty. Also he upheld the traditional teaching than Man has no right to error or to practice false religions which again goes against a normal reading of V2. So what's the answer? We don't know. Lay catholics don't know even this much so they just end up being uncharitable to them. I guarantee you majority of "Sedes are prots" catholics have never even heard of St. Vincent Ferrer, much less read about the Arian Controversy and how many Bishops and Priests were Arian. It was by almost all accounts likely a majority. So since they don't have answers the easiest way out is being rude.
I'm not a sede but to deny that there aren't serious issues that are not easy to resolve is to be stupid. It doesn't help there are literally thousands of people on the literal paycheck of Rome shilling for how there is no issue at all and how anyone "who is trained to read the magisterium" can see why Amoris Laetitia has no issues. There is literally a Priest shilling his articles on r-Catholicism who said this. He said that anyone trained to read the Magisterium would have no issue with it and it's some sort of internet issue, yeah it's a gamer moment. So Cardinal Burke, literally was the highest canon lawyer, wasn't trained to read the Magisterium?
You have shills like Jimmy Akin saying that Jews that convert are "doubly justified" that them being a Jew justifies them. You have the literal Vatican in 2015 issuing a bizarre document about Jews saying how we should have no specific mission to convert Jews and somehow almost they can be saved without converting.
You have mainstream beliefs that you do not have to believe in Christ to be saved. Bishop Barron says that atheists can be saved. Head mod on r-Catholicism believes this too. He went so far to say that if you think that you need to believe in the incarnation and the Trinity, that is heresy.
And these are the same handwaving people who pretend like V2 was totally normal and there are no issues. So it's not a wonder why some people take the sede route.
Josiah Rodriguez
What the literal ursine fictional character
Jose Thompson
Yeah digifork is the guys name. I dunno if that's worse or r-Christianity, the head active mod brucemo actively said he wants the Catholic church destroyed. And he is an atheist. Reddit needs to be purged but I guess that's another story.
Logan Stewart
Wow, people like you have really fallen for the Modernist salami strategy, huh? They start by changing, or at least muddying, the doctrine on religious liberty 60 years ago, leading up to today where they have directly contradicted the Catechism with their recent claims about the death penalty. 60 years from now they'll be flat-out denying the Trinity and people like you will be going along with it.
By the way, God doesn't want us to not think. I highly doubt he is going to accept the "just following orders" excuse from anyone who the capacity to think rationally about these issues.
Luis Morales
for
Oliver Ward
There is nothing wrong with the Church updating the catechism to reflect new understandings of ethics that come with the changing times. It's not like the Church always gets things right the first time around.
For instance, at various times in the Church's history, it was taught that life began at the quickening, and getting an abortion before then was only a venial sin. Then science improved and now we know that life begins at conception, so we updated the teachings.
Or maybe we should go back to the old teaching on the virtue that it is older.
Kevin Cook
Abortion was never considered a venial sin this is a lie
Carter Powell
churchfathers.org
churchfathers.org
The scholastics thought that the immortal soul was infused at the quickening, but abortion was still a grave sin. Later, abortion became something that would incur an immediate excommunication.
Jayden Jones
The Bishops who voted on the documents and ratified them/the Council are the same people who imposed what they mean onto the faithful. One cannot oppose the "spirit of Vatican II" and the reality of Vatican II.
Ryder Perry
They are all going to hell, user. Few are those that will reap the rewards of Heaven.
Brody Hughes
Kek I bet this guy thinks schismatic means attending an SSPX mass for their anti-modernist sermons.
Nathaniel Walker
...
Gabriel Robinson
Cuck
Charles Powell
How gravely evil of a sin can small doctrinal disagreements about the Roman Rite when the winnie the pooh Pope kisses the Quran and liberal priests are welcomed Orthodox Christians into communion?
Lincoln Russell
Attending Mass at a SSPX chapel
Cardinal Silvio Oddi
President for the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy
March 17, 1984
This reply was made to an inquiry made by a family about whether attending Mass at an SSPX chapel would serve to fulfill their Sunday Obligation:
NB: Ironically, because of the ambiguous canon in the New Code regarding the fulfillment of one’s Sunday obligation (i.e., “wherever Mass is celebrated in a Catholic rite”) many liberally-minded bishops and priests will apply this in the “spirit of ecumenism” to the divine services offered by the schismatic and heretical Orthodox, but not to the Masses celebrated by priests of the SSPX!
Msgr. Camille Perl
Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei
In a May 28, 1996 letter and repeated in Protocol No. 236/98 of March 6, 1998:
And in a letter of September 27, 2002:
Daniel Barnes
The real reason for the Society’s stand
The attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X is not reducible to a certain personal attachment to the Church’s Tradition. If it only involved a personal attachment, we should have accepted long ago (as ultimately the priests of Campos did in 2002, and the priests of the Institute of the Good Shepherd in 2006) the principle of the personal apostolic administration or of a personal parish, which are particular, limited legal frameworks within which the expression of a personal attachment to the Tradition of the Church can legitimately prevail, more or less, according to the terms of the agreements. And because this attachment is merely personal, there is no room for challenging the gains of the Second Vatican Council to which one must willynilly pledge allegiance, even if it is only by signing the New Profession of Faith of 1989.[3]
Archbishop Lefebvre never refused in principle Rome’s extended hand, and, following its founder, the Society of St. Pius X always remains ready to respond favorably to the opportunity of these discussions with the authorities of the hierarchy. But these contacts have only one goal: to let the pure and integral voice of Catholic Tradition be heard in Rome so that it might recover its rights in the whole Church. The discussions will be in vain for as long as Rome maintains in principle the corrupted teachings of the Second Vatican Council.
Things stand thus because the liturgical and doctrinal Tradition reigning prior to Vatican II is not just one form of Catholic expression among others in the Church. It cannot be defended by pleading only the cause of “all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition.”[4]
The defense of this Tradition is nothing more nor less than the defense of the integrity of the Catholic Faith, which is the common good of the Church; by this very fact it entails the fight against the reforms that issued from Vatican II which challenge fundamental truths of faith and thus endanger the common good of the Church. When this common good of the Catholic Faith is considered by the authorities as the object of a simple personal attachment, a state of necessity exists.
Charles Harris
Catholics are not obliged to attend the New Mass and should probably even avoid it if there isn’t a Latin mass in your area.
sspx.org
sspx.org
tl;dw: No, you shouldn’t, for the sake of the public good. Liturgical abuse, false teachings, and disrespect for the Faith will lead one to sin.
People ITT are so worried about whether attending a valid Latin mass is a sin without realizing the how detrimental the New Mass is to their Faith. Avoid it like the plague.
Luke Wilson
I never said I hated the SSPX.
Brandon Bailey
Yeah, because Christ totally told people to leave his Church when ever they felt it wasn't good enough. You're in schism, and there is no way around it. Let me repeat this again, you are NOT Catholic.
Cooper Phillips
Yes, the SSPX started out as a nice cause. But now they've warped into schismatics, damned until they repent and return to the true Church.
Luis Watson
This. I'm sure everyone here does a lot of teeth-gritting during mass, but more schism isn't the answer.
Samuel Ramirez
Not this shit again. SSPX is not schismatic and that's the end of it.