Thank you so much for taking the time out of your busy life to reply
. This forum has helped so much. Thanks for having it up and still running. Maybe that's God helping you guys, that's pretty cool. I'm just going to quote some of what you said in the various posts.
I was just looking up John XXIII and I guess that's Roncalli, I do remember seeing his name before he changed it and just heard a lot of bad things. Plus everyone talks and have their opinions that sometimes sound like a fact, so that's hard to discern sometimes. I didn't know John XXIII didn't approve of the Vatican 2 documents. I looked up the list of popes and saw that he was after Pius XII, I thought he was after Paul VI. It's so hard to be organized with everything.
-----
I don't know if this should be put in another thread this quote and me asking something about it, so I'm sorry about that, but you said, "God protects his Church. He is always in control. The Church couldn't have undergone this crisis if He did not permit it. He could have intervened to block Paul VI from approving Vatican II or changing the sacramental rites at any time. Paul VI could have been taken by God at any time. None of us most likely will ever know, while we live in this world why God allowed this, but we must trust Him. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the invisible ruler of His Church, and He has been ruling it during this crisis. The question would be why He would allow the entire Church to almost completely collapse. It seems to me that one possibility is that we might be living at the time between two ages of the Church, and these things were permitted because they will bring about God's Plan and therefore lead to a greater good that will come from the permitted evil."
~It's really hard for some reason to wrap my head around The true church, the Novus ordo church, sedevacantist position, etc. I've heard that the catholic church that everyone sees and sees as catholic is the Novus ordo, and that's not the true church, but sedevacantist is not a church but just a position as a catholic. I don't know how to say it. I've heard from Novus ordo people that I'm a schismatic, heretic, protestant, outside the church, going to hell, in disobedience with the catholic church and I more worry about if I'm outside the church and in disobedience. But I've been a part of the Novus ordo church for a couple of years, but it looks very similar to the protestant faith I just left. You said that God protects his church. Are you talking about what we see like with the cardinals, "pope"? dioceses, etc? Isn't the verse from the bible hell will not prevail in the catholic church, but we see and hear heretical things happening in the... I don't even know what to call it. I usually say Novus ordo church but if God is protecting the church, then we are outside the church? I'm sorry I can't explain it better.
------
You said something about the clergy taking an oath against modernism. I went to a catholic church a few years ago and it was traditional but sorta not. It had 3 different types of masses, but the priest or "priest" said that he took an oath against modernism but he was saying the English mass and he was I don't know. I thought all priests were supposed to have I forgot the word but not be rich or something, but he had expensive tastes. I don't know if that's ok but I figured it wasn't. But going to the churches I go to now and visit, some priests seem to have the same expensive tastes, so I guess my idea on what a priest should and shouldn't have isn't correct. Oh, poverty that's the word.
---
You were talking about the term Novus Ordo, I still don't understand I'm sorry :/ That's what the new mass is called though, the new order of the mass, Novus Ordo Missae. I guess you're meaning that that phrase hasn't been used exactly like that with Vatican 2? I thought it was. can we call it the mass of paul vi? ordinary rite or mass? I don't think there's an ordinary or extraordinary mass before vat2? I don't know how it could be dangerous, but I trust you and I'll try to use a different term. Can I just call it vat2 church?
www.peterboroughdiocese.org/en/life-and-faith/novus-ordo--ordinary-form-of-the-mass-.aspxDo you mean dangerous as like if you think this or that way about the church and you say it publicly and it's wrong that it could hurt someone's faith? Like you're wrong in something and you share your belief saying it's church teaching or something.
-----
You were talking about the 62/69 missal and then you said, "Scandals and especially beatings sound horrible, but don't let it determine what the truth is. The truth in our times is not easy to find, as those sent by God to teach it to you are not around any longer, at least for the most part."
That was part of the vat2 church with they believe Francis is pope whatever he says or does. But being part of the church I go to now which is independent catholic prevat2. We go off of the code of canon law 1917 and the Baltimore catechism. Just anything before vat2. I don't know for sure but I'm pretty sure that's not the true catholic church because in the confession it was completely different than when I go to confession with my priest and other priests in the states. Like in the church I went to before this one in confession they would tell me to do hobbies or something other than prayer as penance and sometimes it was things I didn't even want to do like go to a certain type of meeting when they assumed wrong about me. Now every church I go to for a penance they say prayers, not hobbies.
ok well then I'm confusing stuff up, but the SSPX does the 62 missals and the church I used to go to was doing the same thing, but it wasn't the same thing. I can't give you proof of that unless you'd go to the masses that I went to. Comparing the SSPX 62 with the new church 62 it was different in how they moved around near the altar and said different things. The missal said to do certain postures (sit, kneel, stand) and everyone in the crowd would do different things. Like if one was still kneeling some would stand or sit. It was just all chaotic and they didn't know what to do.
"the laity would not have even noticed unless they are very in tune with (minor liturgical changes)" the part in parenthesis is what I was going to ask, do you think the liturgy can change? Maybe we go to different churches, are you sede?
"On the matter of consecrating bishops in the manner he did," on that post, maybe he did it for the greater good? I don't know.
"I also agree that Catholics are not at liberty to reject the Pope's teachings and laws. " ~ you mean when he's speaking infallibly? Or just everything he says. Are you talking about Francis or just the past popes? I'm sorry I'm lost. It's just confusing because God doesn't make mistakes but man does, but you said he protects the church, I guess you mean the people because that's what makes up the church. The holy ghost is supposed to work through the people to say stuff so it doesn't contradict the past. The church doesn't change because God doesn't change.
in the code of canon law 1917, it does say that we can't reject the pope and he can't lose his office I guess, or something like that, like nobody, can remove him being a pope or something. but if he speaks openly about heretical things he ceases to be a pope, because you can't be a heretic and be catholic. just reading that it sounds like I shouldn't be sede and I should go to the Francis church again and I can't support that. They support abortion, homosexuality, birth control, no celibacy within the priesthood, etc. I mean not the whole vat2 church, just certain people, some of them "cardinals" and priests, bishops, etc. I hope we don't go to hell because we're all confused