Traditional Catholicism

I am considering becoming Catholic.

But as I study, I realize that the Second Vatican Council is leading the Church towards a dark place. But I am not certain about some particular aspects of this.

Here is what I know

>Vatican II changed traditions
>Changed the vernacular and liturgy
>Made way for unorthodox ideas to be pushed in the Church


My question is, did the Vatican II council and its changes alter any doctrines or dogmas of the Church directly?

This is crucial for me to know.

I am reluctant to either accept or deny the authority of the Papacy.
tldr: There's a difference between saying "I disagree strongly with the Vatican II, and prefer tradtionalism" and saying "I am now schismatic and do not recognize the authority of the Papacy itself"

Help me decide.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevacantism
christianityinview.com/comparison.html
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/documents.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=W7Qm_CDMrTY
youtube.com/watch?v=tKf8Af-QN8Q
pastebin.com/u/wolfshiem
pastebin.com/Gq0Rf4TL
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

bump

>catholic
You mean heretic!

I'm trying to avoid being a heretic.

Which is why I'm considering these things carefully

Just be Orthodox instead.

I'm considering it to at least some extent. But once again, the Orthodox Church differs in authority, and I'm not sure I want to be a schismatic. I want to be certain that I am following the correct authority.

>did the Vatican II council and its changes alter any doctrines or dogmas of the Church directly?

no, it fucking didn't. it changed the aesthetic, but not the doctrine.

Then become protestant/orthodox!
Also I upload your thread on there.
8ch dot net / christian / res / 272411 dot html

bump

What ever you do OP, don't become some protestant meme denomination.

As far as Vatican II is concerned no doctrines or dogmas were changed. If you want traditionalism go to a SSPX church, they are traditionalists and are kind of on good terms with the Pope.

go for sedevacantism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevacantism

I must consider carefully the doctrines, the teachings, and the history before I can just say "Oh I'll become this"

It requires a certain level of consideration, at least for me.

I hear many claims that doctrines/dogmas have been changed in the Catholic Church.

not these guys again

I am very reluctant to do that, but I'm considering it.

Many things I've seen regarding Vatican II, as well as the Third Secret of Fatima seem to indicate heresy or even apostasy within the Church.

But I'm just not sure.

I acknowledge too many non-canonical books to become a Protestant in that way ever again.

I have been considering SSPX.

google war against being

Here this might help you.
christianityinview.com/comparison.html

Make sure you choose the right path brother and that right path is Catholicism only.
Don't turn to the devils that the protestants are.
If you're worried about Francis, don't mind him. They chose him to warm up the image because you know yourself how the western world works nowadays.
If you wouldn't say something in public you can't expect the Pope to do the same.
Once this is gone the Vatican will choose more radical pope.
God bless

>.
>If you're worried about Francis, don't mind him. They chose him to warm up the image because you know yourself how the western world works nowadays.
>If you wouldn't say something in public you can't expect the Pope to do the same.
>Once this is gone the Vatican will choose more radical pope.
>God bless


>Following a pope who bows to the societal taboo's rather than remaining steadfast in traditional catholic beliefs

Get out of my church you heretic

I'm far more worried about the traditional changes made to the church, the change in mass.

I don't know which sacraments were changed, or if doctrine was changed.

But I am definitely leaning towards Catholicism.

I believe that in essence, the Church of Christ is infallible.

I want to acknowledge the authority of the Vatican. I am just not sure if I can. I am not sure if they are in apostasy. I must discover the truth.

See, this thread illustrate the problem--- for about 3 days, this place was full of every asshole for "le reddit_le-donald."

They drove all the regular people away, and now (gratefully) they are all gone, but so are all the usual ppl. All we have left are hard-on threads.

Read Memory and identity by JPII. He is a Vatican father, essentially pushing for nationalism
Read "the world as it could be" by Thomas Williams. It's red pulled Catholic social teaching from a Vatican professor/married priest
Read the actually Vii docs. If you can't understand them, talk to a priest who does both Latin and English masses (extraordinary and ordinary forms) to explain it. If you need to go full traditionalist, see the FSSP
t. theology minor

RARE
A
R
E

You just received two responses on the other thread.

Yes I am posting there too now.

Thank you for doing that.

Nice flag

I thought about this for about a year, went to mass, prayed the rosary, talked to some priests, however I couldnt believe in it. It's obvious to me that catholicism is false. It is whatever the priests say it is, they make up the religion as they go along. If they want to embrace liberal modernism then thats catholicism now. There's too many contradictions. At one point they say a certain proposition is the truth, then later they say now its not. Something is either true or it isnt. It isn't subject to change based on what some guys said. It was never true. Just a bunch of superstitions determined by the priests.

There is little to gain from joining the church now.

Nor does it make sense to become a traditional catholic, or sedevacantist. It's illogical, you might as well just become a protestant.

Or just accept christianity is untrue.

I went to a Traditional Catholic Church, my friends encouraged me to do this.

It felt beautiful to me, the mass was said in latin. There was great respect for God it seemed.

But when I went back to the mainstream Church it all seemed so...casual.

That's what bothers me. It feels like the "Deus Vult" and zealous fervor has been taken out of the current Catholic Church.

It turned me off as well.

But I'm not sure that's good grounds for me to reject the Papacy.

There are many things that indicate that the Novus Ordo Churches are filled with apostasy, but I have to confirm that for myself.

I have to be certain of the justification for rejecting the Papacy.

If not, I will humbly accept its authority.

Do you have a thing for prepubescent boys?

Catholic Church has always been the church of the Antichrist.

Just read the Bible

Which Bible should I read? The one that rejects Apocrypha because Jewish scholars say you should?

Why not just follow Jesus's teaching and do your own research about the meanings of his words?

I don't understand what the church has to do whatsoever with it. It's all completely irrelevant as I see it as long as you study what Jesus said.

Here are the errors of V2 pointed out by a theologian with 2 doctorates from the papal university in Rome:

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/documents.htm

I personally prefer SSPX

but bro pray god by yourself, you don't need a pedophile church to reach god. And stop insulting god by following religion that describe god like a retard who care if you eat pork or fish on friday Religion is for the ones who have no faith

I'm definitely leaning towards SSPX

I want Fellowship.

Won't help it, my long term girlfriend is a traditionalist Catholic and has a bastard half-caste kid.

watch sport, support a team. more seriously protestant is the best choice especially for amerifag. Catholic got the better lithurgy though

I don't agree with Protestant Theology.

Read the text on the link, you'll see how ridiculous V2 was

For example

>Paragraph 30: “By way of promoting active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons and songs as well as by actions, gestures and bodily attitudes.”

This is a Protestant and Pentecostal request. The priest celebrates Mass. The people assist, they do not celebrate the liturgy. Now we have hula masses, polka masses, clown masses, etc.

Or the entire document on ecumenism, for example, the Council of Carthage dogmatically says that anyone who prays with a heretic in a church is excommunicated. So I'd say a lot of people are excommunicated because V2 allowed for ecumenist ''meetings''.

That's funny. I am the complete opposite. Went from Catholic to Protestant, I just couldn't stand seeing the Church falling apart. Some churches are very liberal, some others are the complete opposite. And now the Pope is cucktier.
So I went protestant, pretty much convinced that all I need to know is written in the Bible and the real Church was already long gone. I only do my duty to spread His teachings whenever I have the opportunity.

I'm Orthodox, but how could you move from Catholicism to protestantism? That's not even a real religion.

send qt christian gf pls

Listen to this guy. He went through the same thing, protestant, tries catholicism but realises its contradictory and nonsensical, now is orthodox.

youtube.com/watch?v=W7Qm_CDMrTY

youtube.com/watch?v=tKf8Af-QN8Q

Because dis-illusion is something that happens when you radically change the practice of a faith. The faith changes, it shocks the faith, and people leave.


>catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/documents.htm

I'm reading it now

This is saying that the Canons of the Council of Trent must be believed as dogma.

Vatican II contradicts this?

>be me
>join Catholic Church in 2012
>that marked the beginning of my downfall (again)
>Life got 100× harder

FUCKING DIRTY GODDAMN NIGGERS

killeveroneITT.jpeg

>current year
>anything but heaven's gate

>protestant

Where do you see me saying anything about bowing down to Francis?

I can see how much of a catholic you are anyway, i bet you went down to your 40 minute mass, said "Our Father" and you were gone.
Catholic is Canada is probably as much of a waste as it is in USA, LED light church and shit.

read about traditionalist catholicism and marcel lefebvre

bump

I have, as far as I can tell he refused to go along with Vatican II but did not reject the authority of the Papacy.

Since Wolfshiem isn't here to post this I will do that.
He bacame a Catholic about 3 years ago and comes to Sup Forums from time to time and supports people like yourself.

pastebin.com/u/wolfshiem

Read this, I hope this will help you.

Nice to see some Irish Catholics like you still exist.

>The Papacy and Church Authority
pastebin.com/Gq0Rf4TL

Wolfshiem explains this in a very nice way.

Catholicism is nonsensical in its belief structure, since it relies on viciously circular reasoning in how it tries to justify its dogma.

>The bible does not show a successor being elected and does not show that the second pope and his later ones were imbued with any special authority. All we know is that Christ chose to build his church on ST Peter and there is no reason to think that this authority somehow passes from person to person as the Catholic church teaches.

>So where do we get this notion of apostolic succession?

>We get it from church teaching and tradition.

>How do we know church teaching and tradition is reliable?

>Because the hierarchy said so.

>How do we know the hierarchy is reliable?

>because of apostolic succession.

>So Catholicism in using church tradition to justify apostolic succession, and using hierarchy to justify tradition, which is in turn justified by apostolic succession, is based on circular reasoning

>doctrines or dogmas of the Church directly?
No. You'll find some sedevacantists crying about it, but ultimately no dogma has been changed.

If you don't like the NO (novus ordo) mass and in the local language, you're always free to attend an FSSP parish where a Latin mass is said. :)

Yeah, the church established by Lord Jesus himself is heretical.

You could always become Eastern Orthodox, there's 23 different churches in line with Rome/Pope (aren't schismatic) that still retain their traditions.

>OP doesn't want to be a heretic
>your advice: become protestant
Get out of here, man.

>SSPX
They're good guys overall, but he could also attend a FSSP parish (same thing, in line with Rome).

Rome is working to bring the SSPX in communion with the church, so hopefully that works out!

Becoming a tinfoil Catholic isn't recommended.

See, the church can't change dogma or align with modernism.

Some of the practices such as

>abortion
>female priests
>homosexuality
>euthanasia

will never change. The only denominations that align with modernism to attract followers (which doesn't actually work) is protestants.

Have you tried a different parish? Some priests are just bad at their job.

It depends on the parish. Some priests just can't make the new mass work, it's actually quite sad sometimes.

t. evangelical pastor that formed a church in a former Dunkin' Donuts

Lord Jesus established the Eucharist and priesthood here on earth for us to follow.

You can get the same thing with FSSP.

Protestantism is a lot more liberal than the Catholic church. They'll do anything for followers.

What happened, user?

There's actually quite a few of them here. Read some of the thing by Wolfhiem, he's a good guy. Went from militant atheist to Catholic a few years ago.

Forever and always illogical and dogmatic.

>Apostolic succession doesn't exist


That's not true, Apostolic succession is Biblical.

>Acts 1:23-26

"And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, "You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles"

Would you?

I skimmed Wolfhiems pastebin.

I like most of what he says. I disagree with some of his take on Revelations, but that's not so important.

Only after marriage.

No one ever said "it doesn't exist", it's just *viciously* circular reasoning. Acts, Romans, I/II Timothy etc are all books of tradition without a single utterance from the mouth of God amongst them. It's exactly the problem - men making traditions of men and trying to justify them as carrying the weight of the spoken Word of God. It's utterly abhorrent.

> Acts, Romans, I/II Timothy etc are all books of tradition without a single utterance from the mouth of God amongst them.

You're the sort of person that would have had the book of Jude and James removed.

Of course the Bible is not the word of God.

JESUS is the word of God. The Word became flesh.

It is a dark time for us Catholics but we will survive the Tyrant and once again our Pro Aris et Focis motto will rise

I wouldn't remove a thing. The only thing I want - and it's what *everyone* should want in order to be intellectually honest and genuine in their beliefs - is to critically analyze things in context. Men's words =/= God's Word, which is why *ALL* Catholic dogma is absurd. Men's words mean *nothing*.

>You could always become Eastern Orthodox, there's 23 different churches in line with Rome/Pope (aren't schismatic) that still retain their traditions.


Oh wow, I didn't realize this. I might have to consider that.

>No. You'll find some sedevacantists crying about it, but ultimately no dogma has been changed.


Well I agree with the sedevacantists that the tradition should have been maintained, and not changed for the sake of being hipster and rad.

But unless it directly contradicts the basic doctrines and dogma. I can live with it, begrudgingly.

>Acts, Romans, I/II Timothy etc are all books of tradition without a single utterance from the mouth of God amongst them. It's exactly the problem - men making traditions of men and trying to justify them as carrying the weight of the spoken Word of God. It's utterly abhorrent.


2 Thessalonians 2:15

>So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

Men telling other men to listen to them is supposed to impress me or convince me to take their word as law? Are you joking?

>Oh wow, I didn't realize this. I might have to consider that.
Definitely. They are self-governing (have their own patriarch), but essentially Catholic. Just last week I attended mass at a Maronite church (Lebanese) because a relic was there.

pic related


>Well I agree with the sedevacantists that the tradition should have been maintained
I can see where you're coming from, as I'm a bit of a traditionalist myself, but like I said earlier you could always attend a FSSP parish (Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter) where they maintain the Latin mass.

These are not just the words of any mere men.

These are the words of the Apostles of Jesus Christ.

You don't think they have merit?

Jesus said that he would use Peter to build his Church, and Peter built a Church, and assigned Bishops to Antioch and Alexandria.

This in itself shows that there was a hierarchy, and that there's no reason why there shouldn't be a hierarchy within the Church itself.

There's no reason to go to church or join any organises religion. Reason doesn't enter into it..

Just be Orthodox .

The reasoning is Fellowship.

The apostles were worthless sinners just like the rest of us. They were instrumental sinners, surely, but so are multitudes of other people.

Refer back to - that's viciously circular reasoning. It's illogical. It makes no sense and goes against the very laws of reason and truth that God gave us the ability to conceive.

I think you're the one in viciously circular reasoning at this point.

Catholicism literally means globalism, it may be global traditionalism, but in the end it is the enemy of free nations

You see, this is why I won't even rule out the possibility of Sedevanctism.

I know what you just said has truth to it. That the enemies of the Catholic Church want to use it to help create a world religion.

But...I just don't know if I can rightfully deny the authority of the Papacy at this point.

I've pointed out specifically how Catholicism utilizes circular reasoning, and you haven't rebutted it. Which is unsurprising since you can't rebut it without spurning Catholicism itself.

If you're going to claim I'm utilizing circular reasoning and have that accusation matter at all, you need to point out where I'm doing so.

There is salvation via the Eucharist.

You're still grasping for straws after the other user reasonably explained apostolic succession.

>global church
>One Holy and Apostolic Church
That's kind of the whole point, where we are all called to be brothers and sisters.

The Second Vatican Council was literally heresy and anyone who follows it is literally a heretic.

Heretics are automatically deleted from the Church. The Catholic Church carried on, but the most recent string of antipopes are not Catholic at all. You don't have to submit to their authority because they aren't the pope.

Church dogma can NEVER be altered; it's divinely revealed and infallible.

To understand the formation of the Catholic Church you need to look at it from a historical and political point of view.

It has nothing to do with theology never has. It was about power, protectiong and the continuation of the Roman empire with no romans or emperors.

Yes but the Catholic Church as it is now seems to be working in co-operation with organizations like the EU.

Unification under Christ is one thing.

Unification under a manipulative world order? That is another thing.

He relies on tradition being valid to justify apostolic succession. In turn, he can rely on that tradition only because apostolic succession makes the hierarchy that says that tradition is correct says so. Which is a vicious circular loop. There's nothing reasonable about it. Absolutely nothing.

Except there were no dogmatic changes following Vatican II.

hello JIDF

>Catholic Church as it is now seems to be working in co-operation with organizations like the EU
Maybe in some countries. Where I'm from, we (and a lot of our clergy) reject this influx of non-Christians into Europe.

hello

>married priest
wtf?

He denies that the Apostles were valid in these matters. It's going to be hard for you to reason with him on that.

The best angle you can approach him from is this

>Peter is the Rock upon which the church is built

Peter was a sinner, a man, but it was HE who would be the foundation for the Church.

and he established the hierarchy, appointing Bishops in Antioch and Alexandria.

Peter was the leader of all of them. Which proves that Apostles are valid, and can therefore appoint valid successors to leaders of the Church.

Fellowship with what? And to what end?>There is salvation via the Eucharist.

Reason doesn't enter into salvation.

Other believers.

Are you Christian?

I think some Eastern Catholic rites let priests marry

Well, I think maybe I'm more observant of the globalist tendencies of the vatican than you are then.

Actually, I'll break it down to you like this, user. Humans were made to be imperfect. Who is the church composed of? Humans. You'll get a lot of varying opinions from diocese to diocese and even parish to parish. Find the one that suits you best, I think it's most important that to believe and follow the message of Lord Jesus and to partake in his Eucharist. Personally, I don't attend a NO (English mass) parish, but a traditional Latin (FSSP) one.

>Of course the Bible is not the word of God.
>JESUS is the word of God. The Word became flesh.
Yep, Catholicism's for you bud.

Here's another question I have to ask.

Have the sacraments been changed?

They do. Also if an Anglican priest converts, he can stay married.

I don't deny there's a hint of globalism there, but what am I to do? Deny the church for that? I've met quite a bit of African or Eastern Catholics/Christians and overall they're not too bad.

I'm from a catholic family, but I wasn't Baptised and I was not raised or educated religiously beyond my Catholic elementary school.. There also isn't really a fellowship of Catholics where I grew up. Small villages tend to be fellowships in themselves due to going to the same school (regardless of orientation) and football club etc.