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

even if its filled with mexicans

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

Today they are pretty open and shut, I mean since Vatican 1 we've had very strict definitions of what constitutes Church infallibility so Catholics should have no excuse in being unable to explain it

Thanks, I will look into all of this more, its good to have a consistent answer though

Our Ecclesiology and doctrine on when and how the Church is infallible is a hell of a lot more consistent than the Orthodox have it's a damn shame that they catch so many Catholics off guard with their polemmics

Yeah it seems a lot more bottom up than top down with them, with their idea of theosis and whatnot

Catholic Ecclesiology is quite simple really, the true Church is whoever is in visible communion with the Pope of Rome, anyone who is barred from that communion or refuses it is outside the Church. Orthodox Ecclesiology is so much more convoluted it's not clear at all to me why they should even consider the Latin Church schismatic at all

The centralized authority of the Catholic Church as well as the clarity in its doctrine always appealed to me more. The Orthodox stuff only appeals to me for superficial reasons and looks appealing when i have severe doubts, but I'm never really able to accept any of it
I'm going to bed now but thanks again for the help, night