Confusing

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pilgram2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pilgram2000

Guest
I am a former Catholic who is re-examining the Catholic Church. One thing that I find confusing is the multiple divisions I find, especially among those who call themselves traditionalists. Let me explain what I mean. If I do a search on some topic, I might land on many kind of sites:
1)Mainstream Catholic Site
2)Liberal Catholic Site
3)Traditionalist Catholic Site

Under the traditionalist sites, I might find the following:

1)Those who accept Vatican II
2)Those who accept the recent popes as true successors of Peter, but do not believe Vatican II was a true council.
3)The sedevacantist
4)SSPX writers
5)Some who seem to reject everything and are waiting for the end of the world

It’s not my desire to be critical, but for someone looking for the truth, it can be very confusing. You read an article on a site, and you’re not even sure if the person is in communion with Rome or not. Or you have trouble discerning if someone is making a legitimate criticism of the church or if they believe the present church is a false church.

How can one be sure they are getting reliable information and not the opinion of some seemingly learned, but very wrong writer?
 
if the site says they are in communion with the Pope and accept all that the Church teaches then they are Catholic. Otherwise look for your answers in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
 
vsedriver said:
if the site says they are in communion with the Pope and accept all that the Church teaches then they are Catholic. Otherwise look for your answers in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Part of what I’m saying is it is sometimes hard to determine that. And on top of that, there are often a cacophony of voices. For example, I started listening to Church Militant tv, and thought it was good. Then I see CMTV is very critical of other Catholic voices like Catholic Answers, EWTN, and The Remnant. I look at The Remnant and they are very critical of CA, EWTN, and CMTV, etc. etc. And with regards tonThe Remnant, I’m not really sure where they stand; they seem to be promote stay in communion with Rome but resist VII.

I am just saying things are often very confusing, and you don’t always know where along the spectrum a particular author or site is. Then there is the question of where along the spectrum is God.
 
Pilgram2000 said:
I am a former Catholic who is re-examining the Catholic Church. One thing that I find confusing is the multiple divisions I find, especially among those who call themselves traditionalists. Let me explain what I mean. If I do a search on some topic, I might land on many kind of sites:
1)Mainstream Catholic Site
2)Liberal Catholic Site
3)Traditionalist Catholic Site

Under the traditionalist sites, I might find the following:

1)Those who accept Vatican II
2)Those who accept the recent popes as true successors of Peter, but do not believe Vatican II was a true council.
3)The sedevacantist
4)SSPX writers
5)Some who seem to reject everything and are waiting for the end of the world

It’s not my desire to be critical, but for someone looking for the truth, it can be very confusing. You read an article on a site, and you’re not even sure if the person is in communion with Rome or not. Or you have trouble discerning if someone is making a legitimate criticism of the church or if they believe the present church is a false church.

How can one be sure they are getting reliable information and not the opinion of some seemingly learned, but very wrong writer?
Click to expand...
Avoid all but the one highlighted. See the tract below for why.

catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

Get to know the faith. Use this site to read tracts, articles, and order books. As you learn more you will better be able to discern when you come across false teaching.

This is the first book I read as I realised Catholicism may well be the one started at Pentecost. It is very easy to read and helpful when new to learning about Catholicism. 👍

amazon.com/Born-Fundamentalist-Again-Catholic/dp/089870569X
 
Welcome, Pilgrim,
You are right that there are many different views out there. Having my own, bit important, reasons for looking into those types of sites, I gradually came to see a particular thing about them: they are fixated on V2, the Pope, etc. They spend so much time promoting their particular point of view that they neglect other topics: ie, there is a dearth of good spiritual development there, and while they may defend that by saying that is not the goal of the site… eeehhhhh, even their approach is not spiritually edifying.

I was fortunate to return to the Church before the internet really took off, so I was “forced” to rely on books. Luckily, those available to me tended to be good spiritual books written long ago by now-canonized saints. I do believe that God led me in that direction and so I recommend to others that they concentrate on spiritual and moral development rather than acrimony about Church structure and the validity of ordination, which are generally beyond our ability to sort out without years of study.
 
Forget about peoples opinions

Focus: Pope is head of.Christ’s Church, in succession from Jesus. RC church and catholic catechism book with the updated church rules and you are safe in Jesus church He founded 2000 years ago
Pilgram2000 said:
I am a former Catholic who is re-examining the Catholic Church. One thing that I find confusing is the multiple divisions I find, especially among those who call themselves traditionalists. Let me explain what I mean. If I do a search on some topic, I might land on many kind of sites:
1)Mainstream Catholic Site
2)Liberal Catholic Site
3)Traditionalist Catholic Site

Under the traditionalist sites, I might find the following:

1)Those who accept Vatican II
2)Those who accept the recent popes as true successors of Peter, but do not believe Vatican II was a true council.
3)The sedevacantist
4)SSPX writers
5)Some who seem to reject everything and are waiting for the end of the world

It’s not my desire to be critical, but for someone looking for the truth, it can be very confusing. You read an article on a site, and you’re not even sure if the person is in communion with Rome or not. Or you have trouble discerning if someone is making a legitimate criticism of the church or if they believe the present church is a false church.

How can one be sure they are getting reliable information and not the opinion of some seemingly learned, but very wrong writer?
Click to expand...
 
vsedriver said:
if the site says they are in communion with the Pope and accept all that the Church teaches then they are Catholic. Otherwise look for your answers in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
👍

This is what I look for.
 
St_Francis said:
Welcome, Pilgrim,
You are right that there are many different views out there. Having my own, bit important, reasons for looking into those types of sites, I gradually came to see a particular thing about them: they are fixated on V2, the Pope, etc. They spend so much time promoting their particular point of view that they neglect other topics: ie, there is a dearth of good spiritual development there, and while they may defend that by saying that is not the goal of the site… eeehhhhh, even their approach is not spiritually edifying.

I was fortunate to return to the Church before the internet really took off, so I was “forced” to rely on books. Luckily, those available to me tended to be good spiritual books written long ago by now-canonized saints. I do believe that God led me in that direction and so I recommend to others that they concentrate on spiritual and moral development rather than acrimony about Church structure and the validity of ordination, which are generally beyond our ability to sort out without years of study.
Click to expand...
One thing that has helped me is this: Very often in church history ecumenical councils resulted in some group or groups going into schism because of their refusal to accept that council’s teaching. So this is nothing new in church history.

I live in Tokyo, Japan. I started attended mass at a Franciscan church here, but the preaching and teaching by the pastor is usually liberal in the extreme. I attended a class on VII that he is teaching. In the class, a Maryknoll priest said the church at Rome had no bishop the first few centuries, but was ruled by a council of presbyters. The two of them are hoping Pope Francis is going to bring in a new age of progressivism that was set back by John Paul II and Benedict XVI. They want to see women priests. They are hoping Francis will “stack the deck” with liberal cardinals and bishops, so the future of liberalizing changes can be secured for the future. The pastor even said he thought no one should believe in original sin in the modern world. In his preaching he said Abraham failed God’s test by trying to sacrifice Isaac. He said in the cleansing of the temple, the Lord wasn’t acting like the Son of God, because He was acting in anger. Etc etc. Unfortunately there isn’t another English mass I can attend. I wish I had just one orthodox Catholic friend that I could discuss things with. Anyway I’ve kind of rambled on. It’s just difficult sometimes navigating thru all the different voices out there.
 
Pilgram2000 #1
How can one be sure they are getting reliable information and not the opinion of some seemingly learned, but very wrong writer?
Click to expand...
As recommended, use the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and you can rely generally on the answers given by EWTN, by Catholic Answers apologists, by CatholicCulture.org, by crisismagazine.com, and by ncregister.com.

From your post #9 those “priests” spouting dissent are blatantly in grave error on a number of issues – you can walk out of their homilies, as I have done in the past in Australia, if you cannot attend a Mass with a faithful homily.
 
Well just remember your teachings from when you were a child. There is no confusion.

Attend mass on Sundays and holy days. Wear your scapular all the time. If you die on Thursday, that’s good, as the Blessed Mother checks out purgatory on Thursday each week and that scapular is a get of purgatory free card. If you made your nine first Fridays, you’re covered as well. Five first Saturdays have the same effect. Bang! No purgatory for those special days.

Don’t forget your Easter Duty.

Make sure your teach your children that St. MICHAEL helps God decide who gets into heaven and also, anytime you pray, your prayers are all spread out for whomsoever is in need.
 
Pilgram2000 said:
I am a former Catholic who is re-examining the Catholic Church. One thing that I find confusing is the multiple divisions I find, especially among those who call themselves traditionalists. Let me explain what I mean. If I do a search on some topic, I might land on many kind of sites:
1)Mainstream Catholic Site
2)Liberal Catholic Site
3)Traditionalist Catholic Site

Under the traditionalist sites, I might find the following:

1)Those who accept Vatican II
2)Those who accept the recent popes as true successors of Peter, but do not believe Vatican II was a true council.
3)The sedevacantist
4)SSPX writers
5)Some who seem to reject everything and are waiting for the end of the world

It’s not my desire to be critical, but for someone looking for the truth, it can be very confusing. You read an article on a site, and you’re not even sure if the person is in communion with Rome or not. Or you have trouble discerning if someone is making a legitimate criticism of the church or if they believe the present church is a false church.

How can one be sure they are getting reliable information and not the opinion of some seemingly learned, but very wrong writer?
Click to expand...
Hello brother! I consider myself a traditional catholic in communion with Rome. So ill address this for you. I myself enjoy the distinction of the label “trad” most here would probably disagree. The voice I’ve found here are generally anti labeling but ignoring reality doesn’t solve anything. I actually look at it like another rite and rightfully so!

As for Church Militant…I love that stuff. Michael is certainly not afraid to call out dissidents and confusion. Deep down he cares greatly for the church and its future. Most find him abrasive, I find him refreshing. He also has a wonderful apostolate for formation in the faith and produces a ton of material for those learning. Some of the best I’ve seen.

Just like anything else there are going to be divisions we are human and that’s what we do well unfortunately. The reasons those of us who love the title trad are many which I wont get into because ill get removed from the site. If you are traditional minded like me I suggest you find a parish associated with the FSSP and attend the TLM. All completely valid and 'sure you will find the reverence and sense of the divine at every mass from the priest and the laity alike. Not that you wont find that from some at the NO but its just my preference.
 
Pilgram2000 said:
One thing that has helped me is this: Very often in church history ecumenical councils resulted in some group or groups going into schism because of their refusal to accept that council’s teaching. So this is nothing new in church history.

I live in Tokyo, Japan. I started attended mass at a Franciscan church here, but the preaching and teaching by the pastor is usually liberal in the extreme. I attended a class on VII that he is teaching. In the class, a Maryknoll priest said the church at Rome had no bishop the first few centuries, but was ruled by a council of presbyters. The two of them are hoping Pope Francis is going to bring in a new age of progressivism that was set back by John Paul II and Benedict XVI. They want to see women priests. They are hoping Francis will “stack the deck” with liberal cardinals and bishops, so the future of liberalizing changes can be secured for the future. The pastor even said he thought no one should believe in original sin in the modern world. In his preaching he said Abraham failed God’s test by trying to sacrifice Isaac. He said in the cleansing of the temple, the Lord wasn’t acting like the Son of God, because He was acting in anger. Etc etc. Unfortunately there isn’t another English mass I can attend. I wish I had just one orthodox Catholic friend that I could discuss things with. Anyway I’ve kind of rambled on. It’s just difficult sometimes navigating thru all the different voices out there.
Click to expand...
What are you doing in Japan? My cousin is there teaching…
 
Pilgram2000 said:
Part of what I’m saying is it is sometimes hard to determine that. And on top of that, there are often a cacophony of voices. For example, I started listening to Church Militant tv, and thought it was good. Then I see CMTV is very critical of other Catholic voices like Catholic Answers, EWTN, and The Remnant. I look at The Remnant and they are very critical of CA, EWTN, and CMTV, etc. etc. And with regards tonThe Remnant, I’m not really sure where they stand; they seem to be promote stay in communion with Rome but resist VII.

I am just saying things are often very confusing, and you don’t always know where along the spectrum a particular author or site is. Then there is the question of where along the spectrum is God.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s Vatican II they resist, but the so-called “spirit of Vatican II.” Having read many of the council’s documents, there’s a lot I wasn’t told, and the more I study the more confused I get, as a new Catholic. I have a difficult time going to more liberal parishes that allow Communion in the Hand, Altar Girls, and have no Traditional Latin Masses, because I believe I have a right as a Catholic to attend a traditional service, not something that’s been watered down for fashion. I figure if it was good enough for my ancestors, it’s probably good enough for me.
 
Jesus is the truth.

Forget about liberal, conservative, sedevancantist, SSPX, mainstream, traditionalist, Vatican II and all that.

Search for Jesus. When you find Jesus you will find the truth.

-Tim-
 
Sounds like the old “How do you know if a liar is lying?” conundrum. My initial catechesis was in the fifties and I still trust the teachings of those Nuns, Brothers and Priests over most of what I hear and read today. There is clear instruction in the old Baltimore Catechism, still available on line, and I recommend that to new Catholics over the often convoluted new Catechism style.
 
baliano said:
Sounds like the old “How do you know if a liar is lying?” conundrum. My initial catechesis was in the fifties and I still trust the teachings of those Nuns, Brothers and Priests over most of what I hear and read today. There is clear instruction in the old Baltimore Catechism, still available on line, and I recommend that to new Catholics over the often convoluted new Catechism style.
Click to expand...
These two Catechisms serve different purposes. The Baltimore Catechism is great for short, clear, and concise answers to questions. But stopping there is probably why many lost their faith in the 60s. The catechism of the Catholic Church, is better for more in depth study, as it has all the citations to follow to the documents the statements are derived from.

To the OP, individuals can say whatever they please and claim they are Catholic. The Catechism holds the teachings of the Church, and not individual priests, teachers, or theologians. On a separate note, the Church in her wisdom allows for a great variety of spiritual practice and a lot of freedom for theologians to explore ideas. But a theologian’s musing does not Catholic teaching make. Even Saints said and wrote things that were rejected by the Magisterium. Those who prefer the Extraordinary form of the Mass are just as correct as those who prefer the Anglican use, an Eastern rite, or the Ordinary form, just as those who prefer Benedictine spirituality are no more right than the Jesuits, or Franciscans, etc. It has to do with people finding God, and using the tools the Church provides to aid int heir journey to heaven.

There has almost always been heretical and schismatic movements in the Church and indeed just plain infighting. Heck, the monastic movement in the 4th century was a call to reform and response of abuses seen even then. The monastics themselves have gone through many periods of challenges and reform as has the large Church.
 
How can one be sure they are getting reliable information and not the opinion of some seemingly learned, but very wrong writer?
Click to expand...
You have to use your best judgment. As with any organization, you have a wide and diverse spectrum of belief systems, ranging from highly conservative to ultra-liberal.

In traditional Catholicism, there is a similar spectrum. Only you can decide what you believe. What is embracing about the Catholic Church, is that there is a place for many leanings despite these apparent differences. As with any political commentary, you have to read between the lines when reading content from authors with their own inherent objectives and worldview.
1)Those who accept Vatican II
2)Those who accept the recent popes as true successors of Peter, but do not believe Vatican II was a true council.
3)The sedevacantist
4)SSPX writers
5)Some who seem to reject everything and are waiting for the end of the world
Click to expand...
I’ll try to give a short breakdown:
  • For the committed traditionalist, the Novus Ordo Mass is less “personally” relevant because a traditionalist generally attends the Tridentine Mass. They may or may not have an opinion on Vatican II. Overall, it makes no difference to them as long as they can find a Tridentine Mass community in which to participate. This is more of a preference than a political stand, with preference being either due to upbringing or just a spiritual attraction to the Latin Mass liturgy in general.
  • When you start getting into groups that reject the Pope, or Vatican II, this is when you enter what I would call the fringe areas of traditional Catholicism. I won’t pass judgment, but I daresay that you need to be very careful about what you read from these authors, especially on the Internet. Some do zealously believe in their cause, and can debate and argue with the best. Caution is warranted.
  • As far as the SSPX is concerned, they do reject Vatican II and have their own arguments for doing so. Along with the FSSP, they are perhaps the most prominent organized group of what are considered traditionalist Catholic. In recent years, there has been considerable dialogue between the SSPX and the Vatican, in the hopes of resolving differences amicably. We all pray for a resolution soon.
 
StGerardMajella #19
As with any organization, you have a wide and diverse spectrum of belief systems, ranging from highly conservative to ultra-liberal.
Click to expand...
No such political terminology is accepted or used by the Church.
In traditional Catholicism, there is a similar spectrum. Only you can decide what you believe. What is embracing about the Catholic Church, is that there is a place for many leanings despite these apparent differences.
Click to expand...
Incorrect, as the Catholic Church does not tolerate a “diverse system of belief systems”, and no Catholic who “decides what to believe” can be a “traditional” Catholic.

Real Catholics are:
Can. 205 “Those baptized are fully in the communion of the Catholic Church on this earth who are joined with Christ in its visible structure by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical governance.”

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

Can. 229 §1. Lay persons are bound by the obligation and possess the right to acquire knowledge of Christian doctrine appropriate to the capacity and condition of each in order for them to be able to live according to this doctrine, announce it themselves, defend it if necessary, and take their part in exercising the apostolate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top