Doubts about SSPX

Rob Banks

Pelican
E. Michael Jones teaches that it was the interpretation of Vatican II controlled by Jews that caused that more than the document itself.
Just watched an EMJ video about this very topic. This seems to be accurate. The document does not absolve Jews of responsibility for killing and rejecting Jesus, but the Jews interpret it that way and now many Catholic leaders (erroneously) view it that way too.
 

Errol

Pigeon
That's correct, but check out Augustus_Principe's post in the Archbishop Viganò thread.
Most catholic apologist are so emotionally invested in defending the substantive validity of all the Vatican II documents and just lamenting their wrongful interpretation that they refuse to see where anything in those documents could actually be problematic.
Perhaps Viganò's letters will lead to a much needed reexamination of those documents by more catholic commentators.
 
So far as I know, Vatican II doesn't change dogma, so it is not an invalid council. Nonetheless, it is clear the purpose of Vatican II was to subvert the Church.
 
Also, the reason I chose a trad Catholic church over an Orthodox one is that I am half Italian and my mom was baptized Catholic as a child.
Stick to you roots, my friend. Choosing between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is hairsplitting at this point in time. Try to preserve as much of your culture as possible. There are Greeks that are Catholics, but I never heard of Italians being Orthodox. Especially if you don't live in your native country you have more reason to preserve your Italian lineage. Now, if you move permanently to an Orthodox country I would consider becoming Orthodox, but except for that go with the majority.
 

FactusIRX

Woodpecker
I am not sure where to post this, so I'll post it here.

I watched Roosh's stream with Jay Dyer, and then I started watching other Jay Dyer videos on theology.

I have been having doubts about the SSPX Catholic Church I recently started attending (and about Catholicism in general) due to the Vatican II issue.

Novus Ordo Catholicism doesn't appeal to me for obvious reasons, and sedevacantism doesn't make sense because if there is no pope, then there will soon be no bishops or priests either (only the pope can consecrate bishops, and only bishops can ordain priests). This would mean that under sedevacantism, the Church (or at least the clergy) eventually ceases to exist, which would mean that the Church failed. That goes against the Christian teaching that the Church cannot fail.

That leaves trad groups like SSPX as the only valid option. However, I cannot get behind the idea that Vatican II was valid but simply had "errors" (what SSPX teaches). I do not believe the Vatican II people were acting in good faith and simply made mistakes. It is clear to me that Vatican II was a deliberate act of subversion meant to co-opt the church and make it subservient to modernism and globohomo.

I don't think I'll stop attending my church just yet. It has done a lot of good for me, and I like the people there. But I have doubts about the whole thing.

Jay Dyer recommends Orthodox Christianity, and he makes some very good points. I am not nearly as well-versed in theology as he is, but the stuff he says makes sense to me for the most part.

Also, the reason I chose a trad Catholic church over an Orthodox one is that I am half Italian and my mom was baptized Catholic as a child. On the other hand, I am not Russian or Greek, and I thought that maybe an Orthodox church full of ethnic Russians or Greeks would not be so welcoming towards an outsider with no ties to Orthodox Christianity. I am now questioning whether or not this was a good enough reason to choose Catholicism.

I hate having to learn about the politics behind all this stuff. I really just want to find a good church that preserves true (i.e. original) Christianity and Christian teachings.
I was in a similar position. I looked into converting to Orthodox based on the issues with Vatican II and because of Jay Dyer. I prayed to God on the issue, and He gave me some pretty clear signs to stay in Catholicism and the traditional Latin mass.

I reached out to the local Orthodox church in my area (Orthodox Church of America) and was connected with a Father there to try and get more information. He cancelled on me multiple times and seemed more interested in his wife than bringing me into the church. At this time, I also saw the controversy between Jay Dyer and the OCA regarding COVID-19, including Jay's post that he will not be directing anyone to the OCA in the future. Add on the fact that I could not accept communion in the Orthodox church for about six months and I need to find a godfather in the Orthodox faith, and I decided that was enough. I looked at other Orthodox churches as well, but the problem is they are so ethnic focused, that it seems ridiculous for me to join.

I like my current church. It's conservative. It has a beautiful Latin mass. My family (Polish) were all Roman Catholic. It just feels like a better fit for me, and praying to God, I feel emboldened that He wants me to stay.
 

FactusIRX

Woodpecker
Stick to you roots, my friend. Choosing between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is hairsplitting at this point in time. Try to preserve as much of your culture as possible. There are Greeks that are Catholics, but I never heard of Italians being Orthodox. Especially if you don't live in your native country you have more reason to preserve your Italian lineage. Now, if you move permanently to an Orthodox country I would consider becoming Orthodox, but except for that go with the majority.
There aren't figures like Jay Dyer or Roosh in Catholicism, so I feel like there's less discussion for young men to understand and feel like they belong in Catholicism. However, if you start to read and explore, there's a lot of great scholarly material on the RCC that is just as rich as the Orthodox works. Perhaps we need to get together an essential/intermediate/advanced reading list of Catholic material like Dyer has.
 

Hermetic Seal

Kingfisher
Gold Member
I think Dyer's criticism of OCA are legitimate and valuable. I'm much more inclined to look into the Antiochian and ROCOR parishes, personally.

That being said, I often find Dyer pretty incomprehensible, even though I'm a reasonably smart fellow with a decent understanding of various areas of theology. Yet I find it very difficult to care about the sort of Orthodox-Catholic bickering he spends so much time talking about. There's stuff I like about the Catholic church, and stuff I like about the Orthodox church. There's way more common ground than not (at least among the members of this forum.) I wouldn't dare say one church or the other is leading its members straight into hell.

Then again, it's easy for me to say this because I'm a disillusioned protestant and not a member of either church. Reading this thread, it's interesting to hear various posters telling the OP to stick with the Catholic church due to his Italian heritage. Makes sense. But what about someone like me, who's an Anglo-Saxon Protestant, whose ancestors variously belonged to Baptist and Presbyterian churches? I don't feel particularly indebted/drawn toward Catholicism, and have no nostalgic longing for the days of Latin Mass. Western Rite Orthodoxy seems intriguing for various reasons, perhaps because there's something in it that appeals to my heritage.

It's rough not being able to visit some churches and investigate in the flesh right now.
 
Perhaps we need to get together an essential/intermediate/advanced reading list of Catholic material like Dyer has.
Determining the church you want to belong to based on internet personalities that know something is not a good idea. Sure, they provide information, but faith and living Christlike is more than elaborate theology and interpretations of Scripture. Most peasants live more Christlike than we will ever be able to. Instead of researching autistically, choose what is right based on the basic knowledge you gained and stick with it for a while. You can adjust yourself or regret your decision later. What is important that you do something and don't limit yourself to autistic intellectualism. We live in an age where intellectualism is overvalued and action is underappreciated.

What I like about E. Michael Jones is that he explains Christian morality without going deeply into Catholic theology. Your average layman can follow what he is saying without knowing anything about Catholicism.

ut what about someone like me, who's an Anglo-Saxon Protestant, whose ancestors variously belonged to Baptist and Presbyterian churches?
Your Mother Church is still the Catholic Church. Presbyterians and Baptists come from the Protestants, which come from the Roman Catholic Church. Embrace your Roman heritage.
 

FactusIRX

Woodpecker
Determining the church you want to belong to based on internet personalities that know something is not a good idea.
I agree with you there.

Царь Николай said:
Sure, they provide information, but faith and living Christlike is more than elaborate theology and interpretations of Scripture. Most peasants live more Christlike than we will ever be able to. Instead of researching autistically, choose what is right based on the basic knowledge you gained and stick with it for a while. You can adjust yourself or regret your decision later. What is important that you do something and don't limit yourself to autistic intellectualism. We live in an age where intellectualism is overvalued and action is underappreciated.

What I like about E. Michael Jones is that he explains Christian morality without going deeply into Catholic theology. Your average layman can follow what he is saying without knowing anything about Catholicism.
While I agree that Christ isn't restricted to the intellectual, having resources available to those that want it is a benefit to the Church and to those seeking it out. Many young men are interested in exploring the doctrine and history of the Church, and there's nothing wrong with making that rich intellectual traditional available. I found that reading more about the RCC helped deepen my Faith. God gave me my intellectual ability precisely to allow me to understand the mysteries of Faith in a deeper manner. Not all humans are provided with that gift, however.
 
I agree with you there.


While I agree that Christ isn't restricted to the intellectual, having resources available to those that want it is a benefit to the Church and to those seeking it out. Many young men are interested in exploring the doctrine and history of the Church, and there's nothing wrong with making that rich intellectual traditional available. I found that reading more about the RCC helped deepen my Faith. God gave me my intellectual ability precisely to allow me to understand the mysteries of Faith in a deeper manner. Not all humans are provided with that gift, however.
Yeah, there is nothing wrong with acquiring knowledge. What I see though is that new converts are too caught up with it. What I mean is that, for example, having charity is way more important than any knowledge that you gained. Knowledge and actions create understanding, though many lack understanding and try to give a Christlike image isntead of striving to be like him. Not directed at you, but for many knowledge and many words are a wall to hide from actual understanding.
 

Errol

Pigeon
Then again, it's easy for me to say this because I'm a disillusioned protestant and not a member of either church. Reading this thread, it's interesting to hear various posters telling the OP to stick with the Catholic church due to his Italian heritage. Makes sense. But what about someone like me, who's an Anglo-Saxon Protestant, whose ancestors variously belonged to Baptist and Presbyterian churches? I don't feel particularly indebted/drawn toward Catholicism, and have no nostalgic longing for the days of Latin Mass. Western Rite Orthodoxy seems intriguing for various reasons, perhaps because there's something in it that appeals to my heritage.
If I was struggling with this question, I would check out what has been happening with the Anglican Ordinariate movement for the past decade or so:

There aren't figures like Jay Dyer or Roosh in Catholicism, so I feel like there's less discussion for young men to understand and feel like they belong in Catholicism.
Aurini, where are you? I know you post here. This mantle is yours to claim!
 

NickK

Sparrow
Rod Dreher, too, author of The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation, renounced Catholicism for Orthodoxy, which is anything but orthodox. They have a heretical conception of the Trinity; they think the Holy Ghost doesn't proceed from the Father and the Son but only from the Son.

A good article is James Larson's "Eastern Orthodoxy: Never The Twain Should Meet: A Study of The Radical Divide Between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Theology."

The SSPX is a society of validly ordained, orthodox Catholic priests, who also have balls: Here's one recently on the Tucker Carlson show.
The Filioque is a heresy introduced when the Franks took over the Papacy from the Orthodox Popes and installed their heretical puppets,
 

NoMoreTO

Ostrich
The Filioque is a heresy introduced when the Franks took over the Papacy from the Orthodox Popes and installed their heretical puppets,
We don't need ortho bros coming onto Catholic threads spouting heresy. Filioque is Catholic Dogma and is not heresy.

You aren't with us, you aren't Catholic, so separate yourself. I go on orthodox threads only when I have a question about something related to orthodoxy, or to gain from some of the convos there.
 

NickK

Sparrow
We don't need ortho bros coming onto Catholic threads spouting heresy. Filioque is Catholic Dogma and is not heresy.

You aren't with us, you aren't Catholic, so separate yourself. I go on orthodox threads only when I have a question about something related to orthodoxy, or to gain from some of the convos there.
The Filioque is a heresy introduced when the Franks took over the papacy from the Orthodox popes.
 

NoMoreTO

Ostrich
The Filioque is a heresy introduced when the Franks took over the papacy from the Orthodox popes.
The trinity is uniquely Catholic. Orthodox have a dual view of God, in that they separate the Father from the Son in this regard. It's lukewarm on the divinity of Christ, which makes sense because the original Aryans were all byzantine greeks.

Second Council of Lyon defined that the Holy Spirit "proceeds eternally from the Father and from the Son, not as from two principles but from a single principle, not by two spirations but by a single spiration".
John 15 - Douay Rheims
[21] But all these things they will do to you for my name's sake: because they know not him who sent me. [22] If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. [23] He that hateth me, hateth my Father also. [24] If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father. [25] But that the word may be fulfilled which is written in their law: They hated me without cause.

[26] But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me. [27] And you shall give testimony, because you are with me from the beginning.

[26] "Whom I will send": This proves, against the modern Greeks, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Son, as well as from the Father: otherwise he could not be sent by the Son.
[31] Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ. For neither was he left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption. [32] This Jesus hath God raised again, whereof all we are witnesses. [33] Being exalted therefore by the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath poured forth this which you see and hear.B [34] For David ascended not into heaven; but he himself said: The Lord said to my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, [35] Until I make thy enemies thy footstool.
 

Hermetic Seal

Kingfisher
Gold Member
Orthodox have a dual view of God, in that they separate the Father from the Son in this regard. It's lukewarm on the divinity of Christ, which makes sense because the original Aryans were all byzantine greeks.
As somebody who's done a lot of research on Orthodoxy for the last few months, I feel comfortable calling this accusation completely absurd. The Orthodox are obsessed with the divinity of Christ and constantly emphasize it. You don't have to agree with their interpretation of the filioque but this is a total mischaracterization of what they believe.

Reading those verses on their own, I doubt I'd arrive at the filioque. (In fact, as a Protestant outsider, when I started researching Orthodoxy I found this whole thing pretty surprising because I'd always though the Spirit proceeded from the Father alone, albeit I'd never given this subject a great deal of attention.) It sounds like Jesus is describing the means by which believers receive the Holy Spirit: if the Creed said "proceeds from the Father through the son" I don't think anybody would object to it. (And apparently, some attempting to reconcile the Roman Catholic and Orthodox positions have taken this approach.)

Jesus doesn't appear to be teaching the inner relations of the Trinity, he's teaching how normal people can receive the Spirit. It is through Jesus' death and resurrection (and our faith in him) that we receive the Spirit; compare with the Old Testament, where most people with faith in God did not receive the Spirit and it was a rare, usually temporary anointing.

If the Spirit proceeds through both, why can't Jesus simply say, "Here, I will dispense you the Holy Spirit right now, myself"? Or "whom I will send you from the Father and from myself"? Jesus unquestionably plays a role (in that if not for him, the Spirit doesn't come down) but his language seems to suggest the limits of His Person and His subordination to the Father; similarly to how he says that he knows "neither the day nor the hour" of the Judgement. So Jesus plays a role in us receiving the Spirit, but he doesn't appear to be the ontological source.

The last verse, 31 (from Hebrews?) seems to introduce a problem with the filioque that I haven't seen discussed before: if the Spirit proceeds from the Son, then why (and how) does Jesus receive the Spirit from the Father, anyway? The Spirit already would proceed from the Son as part of his very person as the Son, rendering the whole idea of being anointed by the Spirit redundant and incoherent.

I don't think the filioque is a completely insane idea or necessarily a heresy, and I can see how somebody would arrive at it. I don't think the Roman Catholic position is unreasonable. If it was in the Creed in the first place I doubt I'd have great reason to gripe about it. But I do think the Orthodox understanding makes more sense, and I'd be inclined to stick with the original phrasing of the Creed rather than a change introduced hundreds of years later.
 

NoMoreTO

Ostrich
^^ Your points are well taken. I wasn't being charitable and was a little annoyed at some pigeon throwing heretic bombs on an SSPX thread. Ultimately, to properly analyze these things you have to be speaking Greek and Latin. So for me, ultimately the trinity is a mystery that should be learned by the layman, but authoritative teaching is saved for the theologians and the authority of the Church.

On that note if you are investigating The Eastern Churches, you should consider investigating Catholicism at the same time.

There are problems with the Novus Ordo Mass, which is why many are attending SSPX and latin mass Churches as mentioned in this thread.

You made a point as to "why change the faith or creed", Western Christians said the creed differently than eastern Christians for 500 years, and some eastern Catholic Churches still recite the creed using the old language. Creeds have been slightly updated from time to time to adjust wording, this is within the bounds of Church Authority.

The desire for no innovation is a seeming benefit of the Orthodox Church, especially as we are having issues with some "innovation" recently in the Catholic Church, particularly the new mass. Still, there are great councils beyond the Schism which deal with a changing world. If you are Protestant than the Council of Trent would be a good place to start. as it relates to the counter reformation. Teachings need to be clarified or further examined over time, the sinless birth of Our Lady would be an example of this. Saints play a major role in this, but Councils are critical as spiritual issues & contentions arise over time.
 

NickK

Sparrow
John 15:26
"But when the Helper comes whom I shall SEND to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who PROCEEDS from the Father, He will testify of Me".

3rd ecumenical Council, Canon Z:
Whoever detracts or adds to the symbol of Nicea is anathemtized.
 
Top