Catholics warring against the Pope?

[Fake Messiah]

The splinter group mentioned in the article is the Society of St Pius X, with whom I have been involved. I used to attend their chapel when I lived in Wellington. They practice and teach the Catholic faith the way it was (at least in some places) before Vatican II in the 1960s. They celebrate only the Traditional Latin Mass and their priests still wear cassocks.  They are not sedevacantists, but are very critical of the current pope and hierarchy, sometimes using the term "Conciliar Church" to describe them. They will tell you not to go to the New Mass and are opposed to television.

wow KiwiNFLFan that is actually very interesting. I heard very little about Vatican 1 Catholics, mostly in Joe Eszterhas' ebook "Heaven and Mel" in which he recounts a year he spent with Mel Gibson. So Gibsons are also V1 family and they see Vatican as being infiltrated by communist Jews. Like before the mass on Sunday Mel's dad was explaining Eszterhas how Cardinal Ottaviani sat on Pope John Paul I's face and suffocated him so they could get the Pope they wanted, John Paul II. And indeed Vatican 2 did bring in 1964 document Nostra Aetate that toned down hate toward Jews, which pissed off many Catholics. So did you also have encounters with anti Semitic talks in your Vatican 1 church?

[KiwiNFLFan]

The splinter group mentioned in the article is the Society of St Pius X, with whom I have been involved. I used to attend their chapel when I lived in Wellington. They practice and teach the Catholic faith the way it was (at least in some places) before Vatican II in the 1960s. They celebrate only the Traditional Latin Mass and their priests still wear cassocks.  They are not sedevacantists, but are very critical of the current pope and hierarchy, sometimes using the term "Conciliar Church" to describe them. They will tell you not to go to the New Mass and are opposed to television.

wow KiwiNFLFan that is actually very interesting. I heard very little about Vatican 1 Catholics, mostly in Joe Eszterhas' ebook "Heaven and Mel" in which he recounts a year he spent with Mel Gibson. So Gibsons are also V1 family and they see Vatican as being infiltrated by communist Jews. Like before the mass on Sunday Mel's dad was explaining Eszterhas how Cardinal Ottaviani sat on Pope John Paul I's face and suffocated him so they could get the Pope they wanted, John Paul II. And indeed Vatican 2 did bring in 1964 document Nostra Aetate that toned down hate toward Jews, which pissed off many Catholics. So did you also have encounters with anti Semitic talks in your Vatican 1 church?

I did encounter a SSPX priest who said that the gas chambers in the concentration camps were used for sterilizing instruments. I think he may have also said that less than 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. Bishop Richard Williamson, one of the four bishops (illicitly) consecrated by SSPX founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, came under fire for holding very similar views. He was eventually kicked out of the SSPX, but not for holding such views.

"Vatican 1 Catholics" (who call themselves "traditional Catholics") do believe that the Jews need to convert to Catholicism to be saved, which is in contrast to the current view, put forward in a document released by the Vatican in 2015. The Tridentine Mass (old Latin Mass) contains a prayer for the conversion of the Jews to the Catholic faith. Prior to 1955, the word perfidis ("faithless") was used to describe the Jews. When Pope Benedict XVI gave priests universal permission to say the Tridentine Mass in 2008, there were complaints from Jewish groups about this prayer, which led the Pope to issue a revised version which, while still calling for the conversion of the Jews, toned down the negative language a bit.

[Pat Mustard]

The extreme disconnect between what the Catholic church taught and practiced pre-1960s and what the Catholic church teaches and practices today has led some Catholics to conclude that the current pope and several of his predecessors were not true popes but heretics. As a result, the papal throne is currently vacant and has been since 1958 (or 1963 according to some). These people are called sedevacantists, a name taken from a Latin phrase meaning "the seat is vacant" and used to refer to the period of time between the death (or resignation) of one pope and the election of his successor.

The splinter group mentioned in the article is the Society of St Pius X, with whom I have been involved. I used to attend their chapel when I lived in Wellington. They practice and teach the Catholic faith the way it was (at least in some places) before Vatican II in the 1960s. They celebrate only the Traditional Latin Mass and their priests still wear cassocks.  They are not sedevacantists, but are very critical of the current pope and hierarchy, sometimes using the term "Conciliar Church" to describe them. They will tell you not to go to the New Mass and are opposed to television.

Technically (except for a small few instances such as the vernacular mass) rcc teaching is the same today as before Vatican 2. But to squar reality and changing cultural nores with papal infallibility (meaning very little is actually up for negotiation in rcc doctrine) the church simply neglects to tell its sheep what's allowed and forbidden under its rules.

Of course the church is still well behind the timse, so don't expect it to go silent on abortion or homosexuality for a few generations yet.

[KiwiNFLFan]

The extreme disconnect between what the Catholic church taught and practiced pre-1960s and what the Catholic church teaches and practices today has led some Catholics to conclude that the current pope and several of his predecessors were not true popes but heretics. As a result, the papal throne is currently vacant and has been since 1958 (or 1963 according to some). These people are called sedevacantists, a name taken from a Latin phrase meaning "the seat is vacant" and used to refer to the period of time between the death (or resignation) of one pope and the election of his successor.

The splinter group mentioned in the article is the Society of St Pius X, with whom I have been involved. I used to attend their chapel when I lived in Wellington. They practice and teach the Catholic faith the way it was (at least in some places) before Vatican II in the 1960s. They celebrate only the Traditional Latin Mass and their priests still wear cassocks.  They are not sedevacantists, but are very critical of the current pope and hierarchy, sometimes using the term "Conciliar Church" to describe them. They will tell you not to go to the New Mass and are opposed to television.

Technically (except for a small few instances such as the vernacular mass) rcc teaching is the same today as before Vatican 2. But to squar reality and changing cultural nores with papal infallibility (meaning very little is actually up for negotiation in rcc doctrine) the church simply neglects to tell its sheep what's allowed and forbidden under its rules.

Of course the church is still well behind the timse, so don't expect it to go silent on abortion or homosexuality for a few generations yet.

The three main areas where Catholic teaching changed after Vatican II are ecumenism, religious liberty and collegiality. 

Ecumenism - The official teaching of the RCC is that she is the only true church. This has not been changed (but I think a significant number of Catholics don't actually believe it). Prior to Vatican II, Catholics were forbidden to attend non-Catholic services without a good reason, and even with a good reason they couldn't actively participate. Vatican II encouraged a move towards unity between Catholics and other Christians and dialogue with non-Christian religions (and not with the aim of converting the non-Catholics to Catholicism either). Interfaith services took place and Catholics took part in non-Catholic (and even non-Christian) services. There are pictures of the current pope in a synagogue (when he was still an archbishop) and Pope John Paul II kissed the Qur'an.

Religious Liberty - Prior to Vatican II the Catholic taught that people only had the right to practice the Catholic religion but no right to practice other religions. Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors said that it was an error to say that the state should not suppress non-Catholic religions. Separation of church and state had been previously condemned by church leaders. Vatican II said that everyone has the right to religious liberty. Separation of church and state took place in many Catholic countries after the council.

Collegiality - This was an attempt to democratise the church by saying that there exists at all times a college of bishops which has authority and jurisdiction over the church. Traditional Catholic teaching says that the pope has full and supreme jurisdiction over the church.

While most teachings haven't been officially changed, a lot are no longer believed by a significant portion of Catholics. I don't know how many non-traditionalist priests believe that there is no salvation outside the Catholic church and believe that all non-Catholics need to be converted. A large number of Catholics dissent from the church's teaching on contraception and other sexual issues (there are bishops in Germany, for instance, who want the church to accept homosexual relationships). There is also a group who call themselves "Catholics for choice" who are in favour of abortion.

With regard to the "vernacular Mass", this is a significant issue as that's where the average lay Catholic encounters the Catholic faith. There is a saying, Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of praying [is] the law of believing) which means that how one prays influences how one believes. The Mass was not simply translated from Latin to the vernacular but rather a group called the Consilium was convened to revise the Mass. They drew up a new order of Mass (Latin: Novus Ordo Missae), which traditionalists claim introduced certain changes that Martin Luther and Anglican Archbishop Thomas Cranmer had introduced in their liturgies). However, the changes went far further than what was actually required. For example, one change that was never mandated in either Vatican II or the new missal (Mass book) but has pretty much become the norm is the priest facing the people to say Mass. Prior to Vatican II, in most places the priest stood with his back to the people facing the altar, turning around at only a few points in the Mass. After Vatican II and down to the present day, in most churches, the priest stands on the far side of a table-like altar and faces the congregation. In many churches, beautiful altars were smashed after Vatican II and replaced with often plain altars that allowed the priest to face the people while saying Mass. Also, prior to Vatican II, only the priest (or deacon) was allowed to touch the "body of Christ" (consecrated bread) and the sacred vessels. People knelt at the altar rail to receive the sacred Host which the priest placed directly on the tongue. The chalice was withheld from the people. After Vatican II, permission was given in many countries for the faithful to receive the sacred Host in the hand, as well as for laypeople to assist the priest in distributing Communion. Giving the chalice to the laity had been allowed even before the close of Vatican II.

Your average Catholic's experience at a pre-Vatican II church is radically different to their experience at a post-Vatican II church. This has led some traditionalist Catholics to say that traditional Catholicism and post-Vatican II Catholicism are two separate religions. The difference between them is vast. 

[Aroura]

How can the church update, revise or change anything?

(and I'm well aware they do, all the time, btw)

Changing dogma, strictures, edicts, pronouncements, rules, invocations, commandments and rules IMMEDIATELY raises the question, WTF?  We've been doing it WRONG ???

Jesus Fucking Christ !!!

It's just the pew warmers are coddled with various BS about deeper meanings, or better interpretations, and the church can maintain they have been correct all along.

It's one of the reason the RCC has lasted so long, they have mastered the way to do this.  It's the Pope.  You see, he's got a direct(er) line to God, and they are taught that he is basically divinely inspired, so if he decrees an actual change, it IS the will of God.

How they explain why the will of a perfect being changes, well, that's a lot of hand waving and He works in mysterious ways bullshit.  I remember when I was @14 or so, going with questions like this to my mom, and she couldn't satisfactorily answer them, so she sent me to talk to our parish priest (who was a great guy, BTW, not some creepy molester), but even though he tried, he couldn't satisfactorily answer either.  These were my original seeds of doubt, in RCC doctrine specifically rather than in God.  It grew later in my life to encompass more things.

I don't know why so many "pew warmers" as you put it don't ask these questions or are bothered by the lack of sensible answers.  
Is lack of curiosity an intelligence issue? Are they simply so invested in the idea of an eternal reward and afterlife that they will accept all sorts of bullshit?  I don't know.  That being said, the RCC is bleeding followers right now, and while some go to other denominations, at least a few continue to ask questions until they finally realize that all those answers are just BS.

[chorlton]

no offence but why discuss their fake is different from their fake to the last little detail like this?

its all man made fake & seems futile comparing or explaining it against itself to me

catholic global HIV holocaust & $4billion so far paid to silence/compensate victims of their pedos sums the group up

[vorlon13]

Technically (except for a small few instances such as the vernacular mass) rcc teaching is the same today as before Vatican 2. But to squar reality and changing cultural nores with papal infallibility (meaning very little is actually up for negotiation in rcc doctrine) the church simply neglects to tell its sheep what's allowed and forbidden under its rules.

Of course the church is still well behind the timse, so don't expect it to go silent on abortion or homosexuality for a few generations yet.

The three main areas where Catholic teaching changed after Vatican II are ecumenism, religious liberty and collegiality. 

Ecumenism - The official teaching of the RCC is that she is the only true church. This has not been changed (but I think a significant number of Catholics don't actually believe it). Prior to Vatican II, Catholics were forbidden to attend non-Catholic services without a good reason, and even with a good reason they couldn't actively participate. Vatican II encouraged a move towards unity between Catholics and other Christians and dialogue with non-Christian religions (and not with the aim of converting the non-Catholics to Catholicism either). Interfaith services took place and Catholics took part in non-Catholic (and even non-Christian) services. There are pictures of the current pope in a synagogue (when he was still an archbishop) and Pope John Paul II kissed the Qur'an.

Religious Liberty - Prior to Vatican II the Catholic taught that people only had the right to practice the Catholic religion but no right to practice other religions. Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors said that it was an error to say that the state should not suppress non-Catholic religions. Separation of church and state had been previously condemned by church leaders. Vatican II said that everyone has the right to religious liberty. Separation of church and state took place in many Catholic countries after the council.

Collegiality - This was an attempt to democratise the church by saying that there exists at all times a college of bishops which has authority and jurisdiction over the church. Traditional Catholic teaching says that the pope has full and supreme jurisdiction over the church.

While most teachings haven't been officially changed, a lot are no longer believed by a significant portion of Catholics. I don't know how many non-traditionalist priests believe that there is no salvation outside the Catholic church and believe that all non-Catholics need to be converted. A large number of Catholics dissent from the church's teaching on contraception and other sexual issues (there are bishops in Germany, for instance, who want the church to accept homosexual relationships). There is also a group who call themselves "Catholics for choice" who are in favour of abortion.

With regard to the "vernacular Mass", this is a significant issue as that's where the average lay Catholic encounters the Catholic faith. There is a saying, Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of praying [is] the law of believing) which means that how one prays influences how one believes. The Mass was not simply translated from Latin to the vernacular but rather a group called the Consilium was convened to revise the Mass. They drew up a new order of Mass (Latin: Novus Ordo Missae), which traditionalists claim introduced certain changes that Martin Luther and Anglican Archbishop Thomas Cranmer had introduced in their liturgies). However, the changes went far further than what was actually required. For example, one change that was never mandated in either Vatican II or the new missal (Mass book) but has pretty much become the norm is the priest facing the people to say Mass. Prior to Vatican II, in most places the priest stood with his back to the people facing the altar, turning around at only a few points in the Mass. After Vatican II and down to the present day, in most churches, the priest stands on the far side of a table-like altar and faces the congregation. In many churches, beautiful altars were smashed after Vatican II and replaced with often plain altars that allowed the priest to face the people while saying Mass. Also, prior to Vatican II, only the priest (or deacon) was allowed to touch the "body of Christ" (consecrated bread) and the sacred vessels. People knelt at the altar rail to receive the sacred Host which the priest placed directly on the tongue. The chalice was withheld from the people. After Vatican II, permission was given in many countries for the faithful to receive the sacred Host in the hand, as well as for laypeople to assist the priest in distributing Communion. Giving the chalice to the laity had been allowed even before the close of Vatican II.

Your average Catholic's experience at a pre-Vatican II church is radically different to their experience at a post-Vatican II church. This has led some traditionalist Catholics to say that traditional Catholicism and post-Vatican II Catholicism are two separate religions. The difference between them is vast. 

The Religious Liberty position above is CLEARLY heretical.

Jump off the page heretical. Jesus Fucking Christ !!

[Fake Messiah]

Now that we're talking about denouncing antisemitism it reminds me of Jewish quota that many universities around the world had, including US. Even Richard Feynman couldn't enroll into Columbia College so he went to MIT; or I remember an essay by Harlan Ellison about his very smart friend called Don Epstein who was also excellent student and wanted to be a doctor in early 60s but Ohio State university turned him down because Jewish quota so he tried to sign in into dentistry and couldn't do that, then not even veterinarian school. So he changed his last name, had a plastic surgery (nose job), christian wife and then he could go into undertaking school.
So who extolled that horrible thing if not Christians?

[KevinM1]

How can the church update, revise or change anything?

(and I'm well aware they do, all the time, btw)

Changing dogma, strictures, edicts, pronouncements, rules, invocations, commandments and rules IMMEDIATELY raises the question, WTF?  We've been doing it WRONG ???

Jesus Fucking Christ !!!

It's just the pew warmers are coddled with various BS about deeper meanings, or better interpretations, and the church can maintain they have been correct all along.

It's one of the reason the RCC has lasted so long, they have mastered the way to do this.  It's the Pope.  You see, he's got a direct(er) line to God, and they are taught that he is basically divinely inspired, so if he decrees an actual change, it IS the will of God.

This is the part that makes me laugh the hardest. The pope is voted for by a committee. It is a blatant political endeavor, one that both highlights which sect is in control among the cardinals, as well as selecting the mascot for the public marketing campaign of the RCC (which is why Pope Palpatine 'stepped down' and the current squishy Pope took his place). How anyone can sincerely believe that the pope is chosen, in part, for his holiness is beyond me.

[Jehanne]

...
"divide the Church":

They say that like it's a bad thing.  

I say it's a great way to celebrate the 500th anniversary of the division of the church.  

Some of these folks will transition directly into atheism.  I speak from experience.