Undecided Christian

[Aethelwulfson]

Hello there,

I am a 19 year old male. I was raised in a largely secular family, although my father was once a practising Catholic, he never raised me as one and has been ‘lapsed’ for my entire life. Nevertheless I’ve been exposed to Catholicism via his very pious Grandmother and his non-‘lapsed’ family.

Well anyway, I consider myself a Christian because I believe in Jesus Christ and the New Testament, so there’s that. I’ve been investigating which sect of Christianity I believe is the truest path to God.

So, I ended up pretty much writing-off all forms of Protestantism, because I believe the Church needs a hierarchy, which was explained to me perfectly by Father Robert Barron in a youtube video. I did investigate the Anglican Church, but I cannot agree with things such as women in the priesthood, homosexuality etc; though I did admire the Tractarian/Anglo-Catholic movement within the Anglican Church.

Well it then boils down to a choice between two for me, the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church.

I would really love to belong to the Catholic Church, I love the Western Art, the Catholic depictions of Christ, the history of the Catholic Church in Europe, etc. However, I cannot agree with certain teachings of the Church that were put into place by Vatican I & II. I do not *really *have qualms with Papal Infallibility, I can come to accept that. But I do have a big issue with Nostra Aetate, doctrines of the Church such as celibacy of the priesthood, and a few other things.

But what I wonder is, what is the minimum I have to believe in, on a purely personal level, to be a part of the Catholic Church, ie, Dogma etc. Because in my soul I simply cannot believe that the Catholic Church of today is as true as the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages and on through until the decay of modernism set in.

If I must believe everything taught by the Church since Vatican II, then I guess I will end up converting to Orthodoxy.

In Christ,
A.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Have you actually read the texts of Vatican II? I’d bet the things that people have claimed to you are in there are NOT actually in there.

If there’s something about the Roman Rite, like celibacy, that doesn’t sit well with you, why not consider the Eastern Catholic Churches?

 

[po18guy]

Get a copy of Catholicism for Dummies and have a read. Most likely, you will find an answer which helps you to overcome your remaining objections. It is an excellent resource that one may use for the rest of their lives.

 

[pablope]

Hello there,

I am a 19 year old male. I was raised in a largely secular family, although my father was once a practising Catholic, he never raised me as one and has been ‘lapsed’ for my entire life. Nevertheless I’ve been exposed to Catholicism via his very pious Grandmother and his non-‘lapsed’ family.

Well anyway, I consider myself a Christian because I believe in Jesus Christ and the New Testament, so there’s that. I’ve been investigating which sect of Christianity I believe is the truest path to God.

So, I ended up pretty much writing-off all forms of Protestantism, because I believe the Church needs a hierarchy, which was explained to me perfectly by Father Robert Barron in a youtube video. I did investigate the Anglican Church, but I cannot agree with things such as women in the priesthood, homosexuality etc; though I did admire the Tractarian/Anglo-Catholic movement within the Anglican Church.

Well it then boils down to a choice between two for me, the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church.

IBut what I wonder is, what is the minimum I have to believe in, on a purely personal level, to be a part of the Catholic Church, ie, Dogma etc. Because in my soul I simply cannot believe that the Catholic Church of today is as true as the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages and on through until the decay of modernism set in.

If I must believe everything taught by the Church since Vatican II, then I guess I will end up converting to Orthodoxy.

In Christ,
A.

Here is the story of one who investigated both…but chose CC and explains why:

*Fr. Ray Ryland served as an apologist and chaplain for Catholic Answers from 1994-1998. He was also a contributing editor to This Rock until 2005. He is editor of The Russian Church and the Papacy. This article first appeared in February 1997 in “East and West,” a column about the relationship between the Catholic and Orthodox churches which he wrote from 1996-1998. *

catholic.com/magazine/articles/peter-and-the-eastern-orthodox

chnetwork.org/2011/05/father-raymond-ryland-on-whose-authority/

Evangelicals Who Journey East…cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a033.html

 

[R_C]

However, I cannot agree with certain teachings of the Church that were put into place by Vatican I & II. I do not *really *have qualms with Papal Infallibility, I can come to accept that. But I do have a big issue with Nostra Aetate, doctrines of the Church such as celibacy of the priesthood, and a few other things. …] Because in my soul I simply cannot believe that the Catholic Church of today is as true as the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages and on through until the decay of modernism set in.

Let us be honest: since there are quite a few of us that are perfectly fine with Holy Church, though we do not necessarily like or understand all things, then perhaps you mean that you do not know enough about those certain teachings.

For instance: celibacy and priesthood. This is rather ancient and rooted on very good theological reasons. And we have plenty of seminarians and of novices entering religious orders and joyfully taking vows of celibacy or chastity.

The Catholic Church of today is the same as that of yesterday. It has grown, and its Sacred Tradition has evolved. Some (many?) things can be improved, but we are still the Catholic Church.

I do invite you to find out more on your own, and to ask specific questions on separate threads about those aspects that stop you from wanting to enter the Church. In the meanwhile I would also attend Holy Mass at least on Sundays (though you cannot receive Holy Communion just yet), spend some time in Eucharistic adoration, and perhaps go into an Emmaus retreat. Then you will begin to experience the Church, to live the Church.

I do invite you to find out more about the differences between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. We are almost in full communion with them, so do not expect them to be radically different from us.

I do not know exactly what of the Nostra Aetate you do not like. However, I do remind you that as part of our Profession of Faith we humbly say:

With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.

I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.

Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.

What the Church teaches, She teaches under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and under the lordship of Christ, who is Head and Bridegroom of the Church. Sometimes we have a hard time understanding some of the Sacred Traditions. Other times, even upon understanding, we do not necessarily like some aspects.

However, we must understand that the Church is reflection of God’s divine providence. Christ did not necessarily like to be handed over to the Romans, scourged, and later nailed to a cross. He did it out of great love and out of great obedience. He did it also through great humbleness, He who, being Son of the Most High, preferred to be called Son of Man.

There is something very special about Holy Church. Very special. Something that Satan will try to destroy until the very last day. He will do this through the enticing pomps of the world, but also through inner divisions, struggles, doubts.

However, Christ was very clear in setting up His Church, both in what He said and in what He revealed to His apostles:

• there is only one Church, for there is only one body, and only one bread
• a house divided cannot stand
• it is written: “I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered”
• “I want them to be one, Father, just as you and I are one. …] They shall be one flock with one shepherd”.

After two millennia, the Catholic Church is still the largest Christian community, with about 1.2 billion faithful over about 2 billion Christians. The second largest group is the Orthodox Church, almost in full communion, with 230 million faithful. Then we have a large group called “protestantism” (which, along with anglicanism, contains about 800 million faithful divided into thousands of denominations).

While all faithful baptized validly belong to the Church, the Church subsists in the Catholic Church governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him. Disagreeing with some teachings (acknowledging that there is so much you don’t know about them and about their solid background and theological development) does not stop you in any way from joining the Catholic Church.

You can count on my prayers and the prayers of others in discerning your calling, through the intercession of Our Lady.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Hello there,

I am a 19 year old male. I was raised in a largely secular family, although my father was once a practising Catholic, he never raised me as one and has been ‘lapsed’ for my entire life. Nevertheless I’ve been exposed to Catholicism via his very pious Grandmother and his non-‘lapsed’ family.

…

Well it then boils down to a choice between two for me, the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church.

I would really love to belong to the Catholic Church, I love the Western Art, the Catholic depictions of Christ, the history of the Catholic Church in Europe, etc. However, I cannot agree with certain teachings of the Church that were put into place by Vatican I & II. I do not *really *have qualms with Papal Infallibility, I can come to accept that. But I do have a big issue with Nostra Aetate, doctrines of the Church such as celibacy of the priesthood, and a few other things.

But what I wonder is, what is the minimum I have to believe in, on a purely personal level, to be a part of the Catholic Church, ie, Dogma etc. Because in my soul I simply cannot believe that the Catholic Church of today is as true as the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages and on through until the decay of modernism set in.

If I must believe everything taught by the Church since Vatican II, then I guess I will end up converting to Orthodoxy.

In Christ,
A.

Welcome to the forums, and I wish you well in your continued search for truth. Just a couple comments:

• I would like to echo the previous poster: many people will claim that Vatican II says pretty much anything, (the phrase “spirit of Vatican II” is especially abused), so I would recommend caution in taking everything you hear about it at face value, without clarification. Same with “taught by the Church since Vatican II.” I have heard many people say that the Church now teaches, via Vatican II, everything from “Hell does not exist” to"a person can be saved by any faith" (which is much different from “a person who is intellectually of any faith may be saved by Christ,” by the way, and which I suspect might be something you wish to discuss further based on your mention of Nostra Aetate). But of course the Church does teach that Hell is real, and that Christ is the only way to heaven.
• I would also like to point out that priestly celibacy is not really a doctrine, but rather a discipline - that is, Catholics do not believe that priests must be celibate because it is somehow directly built in to what the priesthood is, but rather because it is a rule that the Church has the authority to make. Which is not to say that it is arbitrary - there is scriptural support for the idea that it is useful, and many reasons for the practice - but it is a rule which could in principle be changed tomorrow, and there are in fact exceptions. There are in fact married Catholic priests in good standing, though it is not common.

So a Catholic could believe that priestly celibacy is a bad idea, and respectfully work to get it changed, so long as he recognizes that it the Church has the ability to impose that rule. (To be clear, I personally think it’s a good rule, but again disagreement with such policies is fine, so long as it is handled in a respectful manner.)

• It is also possible to think the teachings of the Church are correct, but that many of us in the Church, and hence the Catholic population as a whole, are not living up to them as well as we should. This would be of course true in every age as we are imperfect, but there is no problem in thinking that we’re doing worse now than even imperfect humans could be expected to. Many Catholics would agree with you wholeheartedly here.

I would caution against taking this too far though. I mean, it’s clearly true that the extent to which we, as a group as well as individually, live up to the faith ebbs and flows, so that there were certainly times when we did it better, and likely times when we were even worse, but it is worth remembering that our view of history is somewhat distorted. It is easier to see the warts of the time close to you then the times further off (although arguably, big picture ideas work in the opposite way). I mention this not because I disagree with you that things are less than ideal now, but because focusing to closely on the present bad can give the impression of constant decline - it is tempting to compare ourselves to an idealized past age and say that we are doing so poorly now that it cannot be possible to return, while in reality it is much more likely that we are just in a trough from which we will recover (even if things continue to get worse for a while first).

• And finally, for a good overview of what the Church teaches, the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *is available for free online and is a good summary. You can find it here, among other places. It is rather long, but has a good table of contents and is probably worth perusing a piece at a time.

The actual documents of Vatican II are also available on the Vatican website: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/ (also available in other places, that background can make stuff hard to read there).

As for what is necessarily required to be a Catholic in good standing, I would suggest talking to a priest, and possibly thinking about RCIA. You can go to the classes with no commitment to join and just to learn what it is you would be agreeing to if you did.

 

[bzkoss236]

Just a quick note, priestly celibacy isn’t doctrine, and can be changed, but it is favored because of Paul and Christ’s teachings on celibacy. Also, married priests do exist, more-so in the Eastern Catholic churches, but celibacy is still the preferred for not just priests, but deacons, brothers, and sisters of the Church.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Addendum to previous post in regards to modernism:

A Catholic could (and arguably should) believe that Modernism has really harmed the Church in the sense of caused people to act (and even in some cases preach) other than how they should, but not in the sense of corrupting the actual teachings of the Church - even it if did corrupt how they were presented.

This is why I focused on behavior of Catholics rather than the teaching itself. It is fine to believe that modernism has corrupted Catholics, and even Catechesis and how the (and to a certain extent, which and how twisted) teachings have been presented, but not so much the teachings themselves. I think you’ll find, if you dig deep enough, that this is something you could verify. The teachings have not changed in any way that contradicts past teachings, though they have developed some on some points - in much the way that one can fill in new numbers on a sudoku board and hence add to knowledge without contradicting past knowledge.

 

[Aethelwulfson]

I thank you very much for your replies so far.

I actually do not hold the traditional objections to the Vatican councils. I am of the belief that certain things which were ‘dogmatised’, such as Papal infallibility, had already been unspoken truths until then anyway.

My issue with Nostra Aetate is the reconciliation attitude towards other Abrahamic faiths, I can’t agree with that on a personal level. In no way do I hate these ethno-religious groups, and call me a bigot but I just cannot agree that they should be ‘reconciled’ with our Christian faith. To me it seems as if the Church is conforming to modern politics and catering to alien elements within our own societies. Pope John Paul II’s apparent ambition “‘to place his Church at the heart of a new religious alliance that would bring together Jews, Muslims and Christians in a great armada of God’s troops on earth” is another thing I simply cannot accept or agree with. Again, while I don’t advocate hatred or any other evil, why we would want to ally with those who deny Christ before men is absurd to me.

I believe my line of thinking may be similar to those called ‘Traditionalist Catholics’, but to me it seems that for them to doubt a part of the[ir] Church means they are doubting a part of Jesus Christ, which is part of my confusion. Can these Traditionalist Catholics be honest with themselves as Catholics?

That’s the only reason I’m considering converting to Orthodox Christianity. Because I can agree with the theology of the Orthodox Church, and there are no politics surrounding it that I disagree with. The biggest turn off for me however, is the lack of it being ‘catholic’, ironically. I do not see why the Orthodox Church is not offering those of us in the West the Western rite, whilst the Catholic Church is offering the Eastern rite to those in the East (which I think is a true sign of being universal). But that’s an entirely different point for another thread or even another forum!

I absolutely love the Catholic Church, Her history, Her Saints, Her culture; but I just think it would be absolutely wrong of me to join the Church whilst harbouring an inner disagreement with what I mentioned before.

I understand that I am very much a newbie to this, so please excuse my newbie-ness. I also understand that I have a very long time and a lot of study to go before I will make my final decision, so I thank you for your patience in helping me on my spiritual journey. Thank you all for the sources you have provided, and thank you very much for your prayers.

In Christ,
A.

 

[R_C]

You have a great way of wording your thoughts, and that goes a long way into reaching grater understanding and being open to the truth. I find your questions very edifying.

There is one thing we ought to keep in mind: the difference between what is out there and how we see what is out there.

Christianity, Hebraism, and Islam worship the same God.

They do worship Him differently, however.

I do not wish to get into a discussion on the three here, but no doubt Christianity has the fullness of the divine revelation. This can be seen by the fundamental principle of love. Christ, God who became man for our sake, taught us by words and works that God’s love is unconditional, and that we ought to love with all our hearts not just those who love us, but even our very enemies and those who persecute us. This we do not find in the other religions, for they may worship the same God, but in very distinct ways.

What the Church is trying to do - in my understanding - is to try to promote a greater understanding of God’s true will - on one side, to understand that others who do not know Christ are not headed straight to Hell, but that salvation, being truly universal, is open to them as well in mysterious ways which we barely begin to know after two millennia of discernment; on the other side, to show others that their knowledge of God’s will must be expanded and enhanced, because it still has ground for misunderstandings and even extremism.

After all, there are very, very few who truly know who Christ is and still reject Him. Mostly Catholics, actually. Others have a false or very limited and distorted idea of who Christ is, or have strong reasons that prevent them from accepting the truth about Christ. For some, accepting Christ is not as easy as enrolling in RCIA and they may truly have to risk their life.

We then start to understand a bit more why the Church is moving in a certain direction…

The world hates the now Blessed Servant of God, Pope John Paul II. However, any argument used to attack him should immediately be faced with suspicion: It probably rests on some subtle and gravely erroneous deception.

One think I’d like to point out: you are very strong in some assertions…that is not good, because you are less willing to find out and accept that you are either totally or partially wrong. Ex. you say “this is one thing I simply cannot accept or agree with”. Well, what if I showed you it is God’s will? Then you can and will accept and agree with it, right? Then you should re-consider more carefully your stance on some positions…perhaps you do not understand it and are not inclined to accept it (which is understandable)…but you must be willing to accept and agree with the known truth, once that truth is made manifest.

You speak about “allying with those who deny Christ.” You certainly cannot expect the other 6 billion people who are not Christian to profess that Christ is God Nor can you expect God to send 68% of the world population straight to Hell because they are not Christians in the Catholic Church The Church focuses on our natural brotherhood with all men, and on the fact that all men are moved to find God, and She explores how men are doing this in different socio-cultural contexts in order to understand how to fulfill God’s mandate of “making disciples among all nations”. The Church could never ally with those who, fully knowing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, true God from true God, the living Word of God incarnate, still chose to reject Him; the Church can, however, ally with anyone who tries to love God with all their hearts and love their neighbors to the extent that they are taught it is God’s will: they believe in what Christ represents even though they may not know Christ, and many of them will be saved because they will be “worshiping what they do not know”, yet that which they do not know and still worship is God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps by now you can see that this teaching which seems so hard is actually very much enlightened: unlike others who close in and reject all outsiders of their “inner circle”, the Catholic Church, faithful to its name, is truly universal and teaches that such is salvation itself. And this is something nobody else proclaims.

And I don’t think that “it would be absolutely wrong of you to join the Church whilst harbouring an inner disagreement with what I mentioned before.” An act of obedience and an act of will can be a great token of humbleness before God, and reception of the seals of the Holy Spirit in Baptism and Confirmation may allow you to reach a much more expedite understanding, that will allow you to love what you had otherwise embraced by obedience and an act of free will, knowing that it is in accordance with God’s will.

 

[Aethelwulfson]

What the Church is trying to do - in my understanding - is to try to promote a greater understanding of God’s true will - on one side, to understand that others who do not know Christ are not headed straight to Hell, but that salvation, being truly universal, is open to them as well in mysterious ways which we barely begin to know after two millennia of discernment; on the other side, to show others that their knowledge of God’s will must be expanded and enhanced, because it still has ground for misunderstandings and even extremism.

I believe I understand this now. Perhaps somewhat related to the ‘Virtuous Pagans’ idea? I am a believer in that, so if it is similar then I can easily understand.

One think I’d like to point out: you are very strong in some assertions…

R_C I thank you for pointing this out. As someone here who has come to learn and understand, I should not be denying before it is explained. I agree with your paragraph very much.

You speak about “allying with those who deny Christ.” You certainly cannot expect the other 6 billion people who are not Christian to profess that Christ is God Nor can you expect God to send 68% of the world population straight to Hell because they are not Christians in the Catholic Church The Church focuses on our natural brotherhood with all men, and on the fact that all men are moved to find God, and She explores how men are doing this in different socio-cultural contexts in order to understand how to fulfill God’s mandate of “making disciples among all nations”. The Church could never ally with those who, fully knowing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, true God from true God, the living Word of God incarnate, still chose to reject Him; the Church can, however, ally with anyone who tries to love God with all their hearts and love their neighbors to the extent that they are taught it is God’s will: they believe in what Christ represents even though they may not know Christ, and many of them will be saved because they will be “worshiping what they do not know”, yet that which they do not know and still worship is God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

I certainly do not expect God to send them all to Hell. In fact this relates to the ‘Virtuous Pagans’ idea that I am fond of. I know that Martin Luther believed that all of our Pagan ancestors were ‘roasting in the everlasting fires of Hell’ as he said to Zwingli, but I agree that it certainly is unreasonable to expect a group of people with no contact to the Church or a church to be instantly doomed to Hell.

But, do you believe that members of such faiths can be given the same benefit-of-a-doubt when they live amongst us, or are raised amongst us, in our predominantly Christian nations?

 

[R_C]

I am glad that we found a common ground!

I am not very familiar with the idea you mention, but I think we speak of “invincible ignorance”, so I don’t know if this would apply to those who do have ways to know the Christian faith.

However, please note that some religious group develop very strong subcultures in which one may be living in a certain environment while totally being isolated from it. So even if they are reaised among us, they may still benefit of “invincible ignorance”. An example: members of some cults are so conditioned that they believe anything coming from other religions or from the Catholic Church comes straight out the mouth of the devil…so the more you tell them Christ is God, the less they believe it and the more they think it’s a deception. For other religious groups, changing religion may have very, very harsh consequences…

Overall they are totally in the hands of God’s mercy, but at least the Church tries to extend a hand towards them in order to oppose together he who hates God and wants to destroy faith itself…and we, the Church, are aware of the future coming of Antichrist to fulfill this evil design (though it is written that it will fail), but other religions are not aware of this, and yet they will have to choose whether they stand with God or against Him…which is why, perhaps, we can find a refernce to “a religious alliance” for a sort of “spiritual army” that would be faithful to the one true God in that time.

 

[brian24]

But, do you believe that members of such faiths can be given the same benefit-of-a-doubt when they live amongst us, or are raised amongst us, in our predominantly Christian nations?

Hello, and I have enjoyed reading through this thread. I would just like to interject something on this topic. What we need to realize is that some people do not have the greatest witnesses in front of them. They may be around Catholics who say they are Catholic but who really don’t live Catholic lives. We all know the saying “actions speak louder than words.” Also, maybe they were catechized incorrectly, told lies about the Church, etc. This isn’t really “invincible ignorance,” but it is possible that some people will not come to accept the Catholic Church because of their experiences with certain people or biases that were instilled in them from a very young age.

 

[Aethelwulfson]

Overall they are totally in the hands of God’s mercy, but at least the Church tries to extend a hand towards them in order to oppose together he who hates God and wants to destroy faith itself…and we, the Church, are aware of the future coming of Antichrist to fulfill this evil design (though it is written that it will fail), but other religions are not aware of this, and yet they will have to choose whether they stand with God or against Him…which is why, perhaps, we can find a refernce to “a religious alliance” for a sort of “spiritual army” that would be faithful to the one true God in that time.

Thank you for explaining this further. Now in no way am I an advocate of such historical events, but I do find it strange that we have gone from fighting in the Crusades, having the Inquisition, and having some rather extreme punishments for heretics and infidels; to now wanting to build a religious alliance with them. That confuses me, going from one extreme to the other.

Hello, and I have enjoyed reading through this thread. I would just like to interject something on this topic. What we need to realize is that some people do not have the greatest witnesses in front of them. They may be around Catholics who say they are Catholic but who really don’t live Catholic lives. We all know the saying “actions speak louder than words.” Also, maybe they were catechized incorrectly, told lies about the Church, etc. This isn’t really “invincible ignorance,” but it is possible that some people will not come to accept the Catholic Church because of their experiences with certain people or biases that were instilled in them from a very young age.

I certainly understand that, and that is the saddest part. On a similar note my Grandmother actually refuses to vote for a political party merely because a campaigner of said party was rude to her once.

Luckily for myself I’ve been able to overcome my ‘lapsed’ Catholic family’s prejudice towards the Church. They think the Real Presence of the Eucharist is cannablism rolleyes, that we shouldn’t have crucifixes etc. They’re basically Baptists now, it’s very odd. And of course on my mother’s side they’re quite anti-Catholic, anti-Christian in general but they prefer the ‘progressive’ churches over the Catholic Church. Just strange.

I would like to learn more about this Traditionalist Catholicism that I’ve heard of recently, if anyone can point me in the direction of sources, organisations or individuals to speak to, it’d be much appreciated.

 

[R_C]

I would like to learn more about this Traditionalist Catholicism that I’ve heard of recently, if anyone can point me in the direction of sources, organisations or individuals to speak to, it’d be much appreciated.

We must always be careful, because some of our “Traditionalist” brothers have gone way too far to the point of actually going against the very Church they were claiming to defend.

That being said…I myself have recently met a community of faithful who gather on Sunday to celebrate Holy Mass in the Extraordinary Rite, and it is a nice experience. To learn some more about traditional Catholicism you may want to find out if anywhere near you is anyone from the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), a traditionalist Catholic society of apostolic life of pontifical right, meaning in good standing with the Church, has been established by the Pope himself, and is answerable only to him. Here is the link to some of their Australian locations Even if you do not happen to live nearby, you may always, I guess, get in touch with them.

 

[Aethelwulfson]

That being said…I myself have recently met a community of faithful who gather on Sunday to celebrate Holy Mass in the Extraordinary Rite, and it is a nice experience. To learn some more about traditional Catholicism you may want to find out if anywhere near you is anyone from the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), a traditionalist Catholic society of apostolic life of pontifical right, meaning in good standing with the Church, has been established by the Pope himself, and is answerable only to him. Here is the link to some of their Australian locations Even if you do not happen to live nearby, you may always, I guess, get in touch with them.

Thank you very much! I will be sure to find out more about this in my area.

 

[ThomasLLL]

However, I do remind you that as part of our Profession of Faith we humbly say

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the Profession of Faith an “oath of office” for clergy? I don’t think it is a requirement for laity.