Need advice!

  • Thread starter Thread starter SpiritFire
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SpiritFire

Guest
Hi:

What should I think about websites like these? -

www.theholymass.com

www.thepopeinred.com

www.thecounciloftrent.com

www.opusdeialert.com/footnotes.htm

They think the Pius V missal is the only missal, the traditional sacraments the only sacraments and the previous pope (JPII) current Pope Benedict XVI an Anti-Pope?? The German Anti-pope who was prophesied for centuries?
The church is in eclipse?
The church Vatican II church has fallen into heresy and is not the true church?
Vatican II was a Freemason conspiracy (or something like that)?
The current church and Vatican II is Modernist
Quo Primum infallible and applicable to all time?

And THEY aren’t the schismatics?:confused:

Don’t know what to think…if someone could spend a little time reading around on these sites and share their advice…

I guess I don’t believe these people.

Thank You!
 
These things are such a turnoff for those of us wanting to come into the Church. I have to be honest, if Mass were still in Latin and the priest still kept his back to me, I would still believe that Catholics know nothing about their faith because they can’t even understand the Mass!

JPII was a huge influence for me to start looking into the merits of the Church. He was what I imagined Christ to be like when I was a child. And the fact that he wasn’t Italian opened the eyes to those of us outside of the Church who believed that the Papacy was a political tradition of Italy.

Some people cannot handle change. In studying with priests, nuns, and educational directors from the local parish, I am learning a vast amount of information about what Vatican II did and did not change. The Church is still the Church. The doctrine is not different. A Catholic born in 1929 has the same sacraments, the same moral obligations, the same sins to overcome as one who was born in 1989.

JMHO.
 
Those who believe that the last few (which ones, exactly, seem open for debate) are not valid are sede vacantis (means empty seat). They should be treated lovingly and firmly.

They aren’t wrong because they prefer the Mass in Latin. Pope Benedict has given full permission for that, but they are often just as Protestants are…they believe they can (and some at least believe they SHOULD) make up their own minds regarding Church teaching, and they do to it what Protestants have historically done to Scripture.

Icamay, I understand where this sort of thing can be disturbing to those entering the Church…but remember, they chose to be disobedient. It was not the Church’s choice.

Keep in mind that the priest with his “back to the people” is also facing the same direction as they are…toward God. The Mass may be in the vernacular, but I honestly don’t thing your average Catholic understands it any better now than they did when it was in Latin! You who are entering the Church are fortunate as you are, I hope, being taught more than most cradle Catholics have been taught about your chosen faith.
 
uxordepp said:
They aren’t wrong because they prefer the Mass in Latin. Pope Benedict has given full permission for that, but they are often just as Protestants are…they believe they can (and some at least believe they SHOULD) make up their own minds regarding Church teaching, and they do to it what Protestants have historically done to Scripture.
Click to expand...
I’m glad to see that someone else sees it this way as well. I’d love to see a traditional Latin mass, and I wouldn’t mind attending one on occasion - our priest will often mix up the daily masses so that we can experience the prayers in Latin, the way he learned them. It’s a beautiful language, and it’s not forbidden by the Vatican to practice the traditional mass. This is one reason I get so confused by the constant scrutiny against VII.

I’m so confused as to how some groups who represent themselves as being Catholic can question papal infallibility in this way and still feel like they are Catholic? I am tired of the buffet mentality of religion, the “I don’t like that part so I’m taking the old part and going my own way” groups. I promise, if I find something in my Catechism that contradicts either the Bible or the doctrine of the church before VII, I will change my mind. I can make that promise because I have faith that the Church is perfect and would not lead me astray.
 
SpiritFire said:
Hi:

What should I think about websites like these? -

www.theholymass.com

www.thepopeinred.com

www.thecounciloftrent.com

www.opusdeialert.com/footnotes.htm

They think the Pius V missal is the only missal, the traditional sacraments the only sacraments and the previous pope (JPII) current Pope Benedict XVI an Anti-Pope?? The German Anti-pope who was prophesied for centuries?
The church is in eclipse?
The church Vatican II church has fallen into heresy and is not the true church?
Vatican II was a Freemason conspiracy (or something like that)?
The current church and Vatican II is Modernist
Quo Primum infallible and applicable to all time?

And THEY aren’t the schismatics?:confused:

Don’t know what to think…if someone could spend a little time reading around on these sites and share their advice…

I guess I don’t believe these people.

Thank You!
Click to expand...
I would urge you to remember a couple of things:
  1. The words of Jesus Christ: “He who hears you, hears Me. He who hears Me, hears Him who sent Me.” If you hear and obey the Pope, you hear and obey Jesus Christ.
  2. The Lord Jesus also said, “Whatever you bind on earth, I assure you it is also bound in Heaven.”
  3. The Pope has the full authority to change the rubrics of the Mass. The Magisterium also has the authority to introduce new liturgical rites.
  4. To stand apart from the Pope and your Bishop is to stand apart from the Catholic Church.
If you keep these few things in mind, you will be able to see the arguments of other groups and not be alarmed by them. There are scandals, but you don’t have to be afraid. The sede vacantists have a very pessimistic apocolyptic outlook on the state of the Church and the world. You don’t find much trust in the power of God to govern, guide, and protect His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church through the lawful authority of the Magisterium along with Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Scripture.

Personally, I love the traditional Mass and Sacraments. If you are concerned about the New Order of the Mass you can always attend a Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter chapel instead.

I don’t doubt that the Church has been attacked from without and from within, but keep in mind that the Church has been attacked from the very moment it was founded. Don’t be afraid. She is of Divine origin.

Peace,
Andrew
 
icamay said:
I’m so confused as to how some groups who represent themselves as being Catholic can question papal infallibility in this way and still feel like they are Catholic?
Click to expand...
Just a quick reminder. Papal infallibility does not mean that everything a Pope says or does is infallible. There are certain strict conditions.
 
icamay said:
These things are such a turnoff for those of us wanting to come into the Church. I have to be honest, if Mass were still in Latin and the priest still kept his back to me, I would still believe that Catholics know nothing about their faith because they can’t even understand the Mass!.
Click to expand...
The fact is, is that your misunderstanding of the Church is exactly the problem us traditional Catholics are attempting to cleanse the Church of today (please note: it is not sedevacantism I am defending, but traditional Catholic teaching on doctrines of the Holy Mother Church) It is a sad fact that many protestant converts are drawn to the novelties within the Novus Ordo Missae. Although, with a small amount of research, it seems that many of these protestants end up at a TLM, and they not only know their faith, they also practice it the way our fathers had for 19 centuries before VII. It has been my experience, that roughly 60% of the people whom attend the TLM are former protestants - who are devotedly faithful Catholics.

…truth will out.
 
icamay said:
I’m glad to see that someone else sees it this way as well. I’d love to see a traditional Latin mass, and I wouldn’t mind attending one on occasion - our priest will often mix up the daily masses so that we can experience the prayers in Latin, the way he learned them. It’s a beautiful language, and it’s not forbidden by the Vatican to practice the traditional mass. This is one reason I get so confused by the constant scrutiny against VII.

I’m so confused as to how some groups who represent themselves as being Catholic can question papal infallibility in this way and still feel like they are Catholic? I am tired of the buffet mentality of religion, the “I don’t like that part so I’m taking the old part and going my own way” groups. I promise, if I find something in my Catechism that contradicts either the Bible or the doctrine of the church before VII, I will change my mind. I can make that promise because I have faith that the Church is perfect and would not lead me astray.
Click to expand...
As you grow in your faith, and if you are indeed interested in comparing the preconciliar Church and postconciliar Church your will soon understand the reservations that us traditional Catholics have. Their are may resources on the issues, although I think the book “The Great Facade” has summarized the novelties of neo-Catholics post VII quite well.
 
Icamay,

As a former Protestant myself who will be received into Full Communion this Easter, I think I understand where you are coming from. Along the lines of what Irish_Polock said, I am also quite interested in the EF/Traditional Mass (I attend it as often as the OF). The Church these days can be confusing to navigate, populated as it is by so many extremely out-there (for lack of a better term) liberals who seem to want nothing to do with any sort of Magisterium, Tradition, and Authority. As you say though, there are lots, Sedevacantists and otherwise, who deride the OF and the like. Whether it is inferior or not is a different question than whether it is valid.

My point really is that I implore you to find out what the Church really teaches before getting too fed up with these or those people. The Church is from God; the people in it may not always be. But, (and I say this intending all charity), please do not deride things like the priest “with his back to the people”; even the rubrics for the OF Mass assume that the priest faces the same direction as the people, namely liturgical East. That itself is not something anywhere abrogated by Vatican II or the New Mass.

I too know from experience that wading through all of these things is difficult. However, be grateful that your priest often incorporates Latin in the OF Mass - many are not so fortunate. It is not the end-all be-all, but it is not without significance either.
 
SpiritFire said:
What exactly is a Sedevacantist?
Click to expand...
Sede Vacante is latin for “the seat is vacant”. It is the term used for the period of time after a Pope dies but before the next one is elected.

Sede Vacantism is the belief that the Pope is an imposter, and the office of the papacy is vacant. Those who adopt this position believe that the alterations to Catholic life which ocurred as a result of the Second Vatican Council have severely damaged the sacraments and the amount of grace given through them. They point to the priestly scandals as one piece of evidence, and the form of the new Mass and changes in the form of the sacraments as another. Some go so far as to state that all sacraments are invalid due to such changes.

A similar position to sedevacantism is sedeprivationism which puts forth the argument that the Pope is a “material heritic” due to taking part in a “false eccuminism” which seems to regard all religions as good. In their minds, the Pope is indeed the Pope, but he has lost all the powers normally associated with the Papacy.

You have to be careful with these arguments because they can be logically compelling if you’re not fully aware of the nature of the Catholic Church. Basically, if A=B and B=C then A=C is the form of all of the arguments for their position.

I personally refer to sedevantism as the “bitter darkness of a compelled apocolytical approach”. They are compelled by the apparent logic of the arguments and the interpretation of events as they see them. They cannot trust their local Priests. They will not trust their Bishop. They utterly despise the Pope. All of this because of the belief that the “Novus Ordo” sacraments are invalid, but specifically because they believe that the sacrament of Holy Orders is invalid. They believe that there are very, very few Priests left in the world.

The most evident problem of sedevantism, in my opinion, is that it leads DIRECTLY to conclavism. If there is no Pope, or the Pope is an imposter, then it is the responsibility of those who remain to elect a “true Pope”. When the sede vacantists hold strongly to their position but then don’t follow through to its logical conclusion, I’m immediately suspicious of the foundation of their position.

Interestingly, the last time I checked there have been 19 Popes elected by sedevantists in various places in the world since the Second Vatican Council. I’m sure you can find an article on the wiki about them.

As far as the consequences of holding the private opinion consistant with sedeprivationism…I don’t really know what the consequences might be other than it resulting in a very low opinion in the Papacy and the Magisterium in general.

Unless you know your faith very well, I’d steer clear of any sedevantist websites.

Hope that helped you with some basic information.

Peace,
Andrew
 
COLOS said:
Sede Vacante is latin for “the seat is vacant”. It is the term used for the period of time after a Pope dies but before the next one is elected.

Sede Vacantism is the belief that the Pope is an imposter, and the office of the papacy is vacant. Those who adopt this position believe that the alterations to Catholic life which ocurred as a result of the Second Vatican Council have severely damaged the sacraments and the amount of grace given through them. They point to the priestly scandals as one piece of evidence, and the form of the new Mass and changes in the form of the sacraments as another. Some go so far as to state that all sacraments are invalid due to such changes.

A similar position to sedevacantism is sedeprivationism which puts forth the argument that the Pope is a “material heritic” due to taking part in a “false eccuminism” which seems to regard all religions as good. In their minds, the Pope is indeed the Pope, but he has lost all the powers normally associated with the Papacy.

You have to be careful with these arguments because they can be logically compelling if you’re not fully aware of the nature of the Catholic Church. Basically, if A=B and B=C then A=C is the form of all of the arguments for their position.

I personally refer to sedevantism as the “bitter darkness of a compelled apocolytical approach”. They are compelled by the apparent logic of the arguments and the interpretation of events as they see them. They cannot trust their local Priests. They will not trust their Bishop. They utterly despise the Pope. All of this because of the belief that the “Novus Ordo” sacraments are invalid, but specifically because they believe that the sacrament of Holy Orders is invalid. They believe that there are very, very few Priests left in the world.

The most evident problem of sedevantism, in my opinion, is that it leads DIRECTLY to conclavism. If there is no Pope, or the Pope is an imposter, then it is the responsibility of those who remain to elect a “true Pope”. When the sede vacantists hold strongly to their position but then don’t follow through to its logical conclusion, I’m immediately suspicious of the foundation of their position.

Interestingly, the last time I checked there have been 19 Popes elected by sedevantists in various places in the world since the Second Vatican Council. I’m sure you can find an article on the wiki about them.

As far as the consequences of holding the private opinion consistant with sedeprivationism…I don’t really know what the consequences might be other than it resulting in a very low opinion in the Papacy and the Magisterium in general.

Unless you know your faith very well, I’d steer clear of any sedevantist websites.

Hope that helped you with some basic information.

Peace,
Andrew
Click to expand...
 
COLOS said:
Sede Vacante is latin for “the seat is vacant”. It is the term used for the period of time after a Pope dies but before the next one is elected.
Click to expand...
Actually the period between Popes is called the “Inter Regnum” which means between the reigns. At times it can be rather lengthy.

However in order to continue apostolic succession, a Pope has to be elected from those validly ordained.

If the last ‘valid’ Pope died in the 1960s, for example (and I do not believe this myself!) that means that the last men who were ordained by the last “valid” pope are getting quite old.

So where is the next “valid” Pope going to come from, if the last two or three popes have not been valid?

We can’t elect him out of thin air. And if apostolic succession is broken, then one of the four marks of the Church “Apostolic” will cease to exist.

Sede Vacantism is an untenable belief.
 
Yeah. It’s actually a term used in canon law for the vacancy of an episcopal see. The term was adopted for those of the sedevacantist position and used to refer to the vacancy of the Holy See.

I should have made it more clear by saying, “This is the term used *by sedevacantists *to refer to the period of time after a pope dies but before the next one is elected.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top