Message from @mate888
Discord ID: 485270596226121760
*lol Catholics? you mean pagans*
OOPS
Baptists more like spiritual semites
I unironically don't know whether to go gadolig or rocor
I asked Classical Theist a question on twitter but he didn't answer <:brainlet:402673657391874059> I've been dabbed on
The Catholic Church is everywhere up here
There are Orthodox Churches and I am intrigued by Orthodoxy but I don't even know if they do stuff in English
Begome gadolig
Yeah part of the issue is the cultural barrier with Orthodoxy, but it seems like it requires less mental gymnastics to understand. With papal infallibility I find it hard to believe the church hasn't contradicted itself, and im trying to get someone more learned than me to explain how it hasnt
Orthodox services are probably going to be in the native ethnic languages, but Western Rite is in latin I think
@Mephisto I know an Orthodox Priest I might be able to get you in contact with
@Mephisto Thankfully someone more learned does exist and it's @Scooter2000
what do we do about the heresy fellas
anyone have any links to good christian or catholic servers
I was talking about this in general for a little bit, but I'm looking to convert. My parents have been atheist/agnostic degenerates and that's how I've lived for most of my childhood/teenage years. The big problem here is that I live in California, and all of the churches here are extremely fucked. Almost all of them brag about how they have a homo pastor. What should I do?
Should I still attend anyways or keep looking?
>pastor
thats the first problem
go to a catholic church
its better to get the true thing and not a watered down cult 500 years old at best
Are the Mexicans bearable? A lot of Mexicans who went to my high school were catholic and degenerate.
>pastor
okay this is epic
mexicans that actually go to church are either bearable or mexiboomers
@TradPatriot Depending on where you live there are some very trad churches if you know where to look
@Mephisto @NormanLord What's the trouble now
the trouble was i was trying to see how people who aren't sede or sspx view the church's infallible statements post vatican II. I see the church as having contradicted itself by changing the mass among other things and don't know what the argument about this is. Is it a heretical interpretation of an infallible statement that's still valid? Or were parts of vatican II that were interpreted that way not actually heretical?
Im basically just trying to come up with a logically consistent way of viewing all of this and its difficult @Scooter2000
there haven't been any
vatican 2 wasnt infallible either
no dogmas were defined
no anathmas issued
well one argument that an ortho guy gave me is that Pius V said the mass cannot change in Quo Primum which he says was infallible
So if V2 isnt infallible what is it then, because someone said it was unfailing magisterium
So do you view the mass changes as valid or invalid?
Lol well that's not what Quo Primum said
Quo Primum said that every Priest had the right to celebrate the Tridentine liturgy in perpetuity
Paul 6 in his correspondance with Archbishop Lefebvre argued that his legislation Novus Ordo Missae Romanum had abrogated (meaning replaced) Quo Primum
Now whether or not that is true today is entirely irrelevent because as per Benedict 16's Summorum Pontificum the Latin Rite has the right to practice the Liturgy in both the Tridentine (extraordianry) and Pauline (Novus Ordo) forms
Now I don't know what the hell "unfailing magisterium is" but I'll tell you what I tell everyone else about this
John 23rd said this was not an infallible council
Paul 6 said that this was not an infallible council
Benedict 16 said that wherever the council appeared to contradict previous teaching go with the previous teaching, furthermore he stated that changes had actually been made however he argued that the changes that the council had made (such as on disposition to other religions) had never been dogmatically defined anyway, and that the teachings of the councils weren't dogmatic either making them a matter of opinion. This is sort of the sticking point of the Holy See's with the SSPX, the SSPX say they can't do that but the Holy See says the SSPX cannot tell Catholics especially not the Holy See that they cannot believe in the teachings from say *Dignitatis Humanae* because these are issues of private judgement with no dogmatic teaching
Moreover
Quo Primum is not an infallible statement of anything it's a Papal Bull which is an article of Canon Law
When we talk about encyclicals or bulls or anything like that, these documents are only infallible insofar as they are communicating infallible definitions which are either defined by Popes speaking Ex Cathedra or Councils which have been given the authority of infallibility by the Pope
Okay thank you this is the first answer I've gotten which hasn't been full of sedeposting. This is very helpful, I appreciate it
You're welcome. A lot of the Sede polemmics are from a different era where these questions were more open