Is Sedevacantism a Doomsday Cult?

[Anonymous No.22316315]

Hello /lit/, I come to you as a "raised-Catholic" man of little faith. Per my interest in reigniting religious fervor within myself, I've recently been doing a deep dive on Christianity. As I believe is the case with many Christians, I am only interested in following the 'correct' form of Christianity. This path first led me to ""Traditional"" Catholicism and, eventually, to Sedevacantism. I find "Sedevacantist" Catholicism (aka: Catholicism) very tempting to subscribe to, as it should go without saying that the current "pope" is a heretic, and not actually a pope at all. There are many reasons as to why this is the case, which I shall leave to be explained by my betters, but I digress. That all being said, there is a serious, existential problem with the Sedevacantist position that is obvious even to an untrained, practicing, and nigh-on faithless man such as myself. I am hoping that somebody here can properly explain to me why my belief is not correct.

Here is the question I always ask...
>"What happens when the final living, correctly-ordained member of the Church dies?"
...And here is the answer I always receive,
>"The Church is immortal, it cannot die because its immortality is guaranteed by the promise of Christ."

This non-answer is extremely troubling. Usually, it comes delivered by the mouth of some Ned Flanders lookalike whom has no solution for the unprecedented, bureaucratic predicament which the true Church currently finds itself embattled with. When pressed as to how we can resolve the current bureaucratic predicament of the Church, so as to prevent the Church from dying, said individual usually answers by denying that there is an effective solution (or else not providing one/ denying that it is our job to provide one,) snorting a line of cocaine, and faithfully proclaiming that "God will do it for us." Besides being utter horse shit, I interpret these answers as effectively creating a timeline, at the end of which we will either see the complete destruction of the Catholic faith, or the literal end of the world.

[Anonymous No.22316325]

>>22316315

Think about this for a moment: According to the Sedevacantist position, we are currently in a situation where either the final, correctly-ordained member of the Church will die, thus invalidating the promise that the visible Church will always continue in perpetuity and thereby ending Catholicism/ Christianity as we know it... OR, "Something" will happen to fix the problem, allowing the true Church to continue and proliferate honestly, according to God's will... OR, the world will literally end before the final member of the Church is allowed to die. This latter possibility is the one that I never hear talked about directly, but I assume that it is the implied conclusion of a worldstate being reached where the visible Church cannot respectfully continue, but cannot be discontinued-- and End-Times speculation does seem to be rampant within the community, which I believe lends evidence to this assumption. Either way, one of those three conclusions will certainly be reached within the next 50 years or, more likely, far fewer than that.

Here's what I want to know:
>Am I correct in believing that Sedevacantism essentially creates a timeline to the end of the world?
>What do Sedevacantists believe is the actual, non-"God will do it for us" answer to the problem of the current antipapacy? In other words, how will the true Church be restored to glory, or will it be restored at all?
>Does Orthodoxy, or perhaps another denomination, make sense as an alternative to Catholicism, or is this a case where I simply need to have more faith that the existing contradictions will somehow be overcome by bureaucratic gymnastics so massively fucked that I can't even comprehend them?

Please help me out with this one, /lit/, I am far too stupid with matters of the faith to even begin to take a hackneyed guess at this one.

[Anonymous No.22316334]

>/lit/-religion

[Anonymous No.22316346]

>>22316315
>church politics
>/lit/

[Anonymous No.22316362]

The utter insanity of the "tradsphere", plus my natural tendencies to disbelief made me quit all of catholic shibboleths.

Is not worth the time.

[Anonymous No.22316398]

>>22316315
The Russian Old Believers had the same crisis since they believe the old Russian liturgy was the last legitimate one in existence yet had lost apostolic succession. They ended up moving into isolated villages and became like the Amish pretty much.

[Anonymous No.22316414]

>>22316315
Are *Abrahamic Religions a Doomsday Cult? FTFY and the answer is yes.

[Anonymous No.22316488]

Firstly,
>literature

As to answer your qualms, Sedevacantism (abbreviated as SV from here on out) is one of the numerous illogical copes that Roman Catholics employ to explain the obvious shift in practice and doctrine in their denomination despite their claims to antiquity and consistency. Now, there is a certain logic to SV, and it appeals to the mind superficially:

>Pope Y said/did X
>X is heretical
>Heretics cannot hold office in the Church
>Therefore, Pope Y is a heretic and not the pope

However, this train of logic is faulty from the Roman Catholic perspective for a few reasons. On the basis of authority, you as a layman (or even any cleric under the rank of Pope) have absolutely, positively, ipso facto no authority to make any declaration concerning the Pope whatsoever. This has been standard Roman Catholic practice since, arguably, the 11th century, when Gregory VII described certain prerogatives of the popes in the Dicatus Papae (among which included “He [the Pope] himself may be judged by no one.”) Canon law listed a similar axiom (“The First See is judged by no one”), meaning that, in principle, no one can lawfully declare a pope to be a heretic, let alone judge or depose him.
I’m sure you’ll say, “But what about Honorius? He was declared a heretic by an ecumenical council!” Indeed he was, and for the longest time the popes would reiterate his anathema upon assuming their office, but over the centuries it was dropped (no doubt because it was inconvenient to the bold claims the popes were making for themselves). Even if you take this to be a case for deposing a pope, the Council of Constance (which Rome holds to be Ecumenical) foregoes the idea of a council having higher authority than a pope, which is a supreme irony, considering that it was convened to solve the Great Western Schism, where as many as three men claimed to be the pope.

[Anonymous No.22316494]

>>22316488
Concerning the office of pope as Rome conceives of it, one could have entertained the idea of a pope falling to heresy before the 19th century. In fact, Cardinal Bellarmine wrote a text examining that idea and (if memory serves) proposed five possible scenarios for that instance.
However, upon the convening and closing of the First Vatican Council, the possibility of a pope being a heretic before or after election is fundamentally rendered impossible. This is gleaned primarily from the document Pastor Aeternus, which outright says that the pope is due obedience not merely in faith and morals, but also in church discipline and life. That is to say, if the pope decides that the liturgy needs an update or change, that’s entirely his choice. You as Mr. Layman can’t do anything but humbly submit to his decisions, no matter how much they make you seethe.
Furthermore, and even more damning, there is a clause in Pastor Aeternus that states the popes are granted a “never failing faith” by virtue of the office. Now, I don’t know about you, but I would imagine that having a never failing faith implies that you’ll never fall to heresy or disbelief whilst you’re in the office. Assuming you’re like most sedes and believe that the last legitimate pope fell into heresy during his pontificate, this doesn’t jive with Pastor Aeternus. If you rather say that a heretic was elected to the office, the problem remains the same, but to a greater degree. How can a heretic be elected to church office? Why would God permit such a thing to happen and for such a long time? It’s all nonsensical.

On the subject of papal elections, sedes aren’t even agreed among themselves over who the last True Pope was. This is critical, because all of a True Popes decrees and declarations are to be submitted to; depending on who you ask, the last True Pope was either Paul VI, John XXIII, Pius XII, or even as far back as Pius X. Now, given such a wide gulf, that’s a whole generation of documents that may or may not have binding authority on you as a True Catholic. How do you determine which of them are legitimate or not? The same way you became a sede: by using your personal judgment, despite being explicitly told in papal and conciliar documents not to. SV is a vicious circle, a spiritual ouroborous that condemns its adherents to anxiety, hostility, mistrust, and apocalyptic thinking.

[Anonymous No.22316500]

>>22316494
Finally, to answer your main question: yes. SV is a doomsday movement. It can’t function otherwise given its fundamental principles and the reality of the Roman church. Why do you think the most prominent sedes (the Dimond Brothers) have been making doomsday prophecies since John Paul II? After sixty some years, one would think either a True Pope would have been elected or the whole Second Coming would have arrived. Sedes obviously don’t have a consistent answer on whether the church will be reformed or not, they can’t even agree on who the last Pope was. Ultimately, you have a few choices going forward:

1) Leave Catholicism. This, in my opinion, is the best option. Where you go to after is something you’ll have to deal with, but so long as you remain in this church, you’re not going to have peace. If you want an Apostolic church, Eastern Orthodoxy is an option, maybe even Oriental Orthodoxy. If you want something more doctrinally and culturally aligned with Rome, some high-church Protestant denominations might be your speed. Either way, you’re not going to get Rome, because Rome’s fundamental claims have broken down.

2) Embrace Apocalypticism. I highly recommend against this, because you’ll invariably go down the rabbit hole of schizo thought and spend the majority of your days anxious and arguing with other sedes whose views slightly differ from yours. Alternatively, you become a lapdog of the Dimonds.

3) Become a Normie Catholic. Given the glaring problems in Rome, this isn’t desirable either, but the margin of peace is proportionate to how much you can ignore the Vatican and other foolishness. This is the domain of cultural Catholics, boomers, and Catholic Answers types.

4) The Eastern Rite. This is the premier option for cowards who recognize a problem with Rome, but don’t want to take the logical conclusions of leaving for Orthodoxy or some other religion. You’ll find most of your hotshot internet apologists (e.g., Trent Horn, Matt Fradd, Michael Lofton, etc.) are in the Eastern Rite.

5) Become a Regular Trad. This, I would argue, involves even more strain and mental exhaustion than SV, since they hold the Pope is a heretic while still holding office. The domain of lolcows, autists, LARPers, and fatbody crusaders.

[Anonymous No.22316761]

>>22316315
Sedevacantism is the best of a bunch of bad choices if you want to remain Catholic. There are Sedevacantist bishops with apostolic succession such as bishop Sanborn who ordain priests and will consecrate new bishops to keep the succession going.

[Anonymous No.22316770]

>>22316488
You make the fallacy of assuming that John XIII and his successors are true popes while arguing against Sedevacantism. Of course the Pope is judged by no-one, but Sedevacantists don’t believe these men were Popes. If I claim to be the Pope, are Catholics bound to accept it? Obviously not, because I’m not the Pope. The only difference between this and the Vatican II situation is that the Vatican II antipopes managed to take control of the Church’s physical structures and I didn’t.

[Anonymous No.22316774]

>>22316770
John XXIII*

[Anonymous No.22316788]

>>22316315
I think Protestantism makes more sense, but if I were an ulta-traditional Catholic I think sedeprivationism would be the most consitent position. This positon says thay Popes after Vatican II hold the office materially but not formally, i.e. they were legitimatelly elected Pope but don't have teaching authority due to accepting heresy. This state of affairs could be ended by a Pope recanting the teachings of Vatican II. This has the advantage of retaining an unbroken line of succession and a pathway for the Pope's authority to be restored.

[Anonymous No.22316795]

>>22316494
Excellent point, and the extremely high view of the Pope in Vatican I was quite controversial at the time and clearly wasn't supported by Church hitory. The "Old Catholics" split off because of it.

[Anonymous No.22316808]

>>22316488
>>22316494
>>22316500
Your view of Sedevacantism is tainted by the Dimond brothers, who are autistic retards. Look into serious Sedevacantists like Bishop Sanborn, Fr. Anthony Cekada, and their whole group. They are balanced, sane, and rational people who don’t necessarily believe it’s the end times. The Dimond brothers might be popular on YouTube, but these guys actually run parishes and seminaries and are actually ordained.

Your point about the Pope being judged by nobody has already been answered. Sedevacantists have moved away from claiming that the Vatican II Popes lost their office to claiming that they never received it in the first place. Even in Canon law, heresy bars one from the papacy, so if the Vatican II popes had been heretics prior to being elected, they would never have received the papacy. Their promulgation of heresy after being elected is enough to demonstrate that they never became Popes, since a Pope is protected from heresy.

Pope Paul IV had already laid the plan of action if such a thing were to happen: he said that if a heretic were elected Pope the election would be automatically invalid and even if he were to receive the submission of all the cardinals and bishops Catholics would have no obligation whatsoever to submit to him.

https://youtu.be/DPc8jMKWbd8

[Anonymous No.22316815]

bump.
Lit is for literature and that encompasses philosophy and theology, but it (((should be specific to a certain book)))

[Anonymous No.22316816]

>>22316315
American Catholicism is just Scientology with a pope, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.22316874]

I just want to say that as a non-catholic, I appreciate the effortposting going on in this thread. Also, why not just kill the pope and put a new one on the throne if that's the problem?

[Anonymous No.22316889]

>>22316315
OP, the easy and obvious answer, which nobody in this thread has offered yet, is that we are simply in a period of corruption and wickedness, which the Church has had before.

The Sedes are ahistorical. They ignore that Popes have personally been heretics before; Alexander VI, arguably the worst Pope in history, confessed to being an atheist on his deathbed. During the Arian Crisis, 80% of the bishops were heretics. During the time of the Renaissance, the hierarchy in Rome lived in debauchery with their ill-gotten wealth.

But the Church is still here. It has endured and survived all these things, which should have been fatal to it dozens of times over.

That, in and of itself, is proof that there is something to the Catholic Church. That perhaps it really can't fail, that God really is with it.

When St. Francis of Assisi was at prayer, he heard the voice of God speak to him. The Lord said:

"Francis, rebuild my house, which is even now falling into ruins."

This took place at yet another period of corruption in the Church, the Crisis of the 10th Century and its aftermath. What was St. Francis' response? He became a man of deep holiness, and founded the Order of Friars Minor, today better known as the Franciscans. Combined with their brother order, the Dominicans, they were instrumental in reforming the Church and cleansing it of its corruption.

Our present age is not so different from the Arian Crisis. Then, as now, many bishops are heretics. Then, as now, many people stray from the faith. But the Church still endures. It survived John XII, it survived Alexander VI, it will survive Francis.

Keep the faith and just go to Mass on Sunday. Also, pray the Rosary every day. It will change your life.

[Anonymous No.22316960]

>>22316889
Normie Catholic cope. There has never been a period in the history of the Church when the Pope was imposing a non-Catholic religion (like the Vatican II religion) on the universal Church. Alexander VI was immoral but he wasn’t imposing heresy.

[Anonymous No.22317995]

>>22316488
>>22316494
>>22316500
>>22316761
>>22316770
>>22316788
>>22316808

All of these are absolutely excellent posts. I haven't yet responded in my own thread, and I'm a bit strapped for time, but I wanted to thank and bless all of you, regardless. I'll come back later today and individually respond to some of what has been written but, in the meantime, I am considering my options re: "Where to go from here." I would absolutely hate to leave Catholicism (it is all I have known within Christendom,) but I think 22316500 is right to suggest that I'll have no peace within the church, as it currently stands. On the other hand, a kind of Sede-Catholicism which presents a meaningful possibility to solve this crisis is definitely worth looking into; if I were not to look into it, and instead flee for Eastern hills, can it really be said I was ever a Catholic?

>>22316889

I will pray the Rosary, but where would I even begin with going to Mass again? I do not wish to commit a heresy by walking into the wrong church.

[Anonymous No.22318341]

>>22316315
It's a collection of people who can see that the Roman Catholic church has gone downhill after Vatican 2 and so decided to make their own Catholic church where they are their own interpreter of the magisterium. They have no way to receive the Sacraments, they have no clergy or churches (with a couple exceptions, but those exceptions have their problems as well) and they have no pope. each leader of his own sedevacantist cult has different interpretations of everything and are often in conflict with one another, saying that only their sect can be saved.

Somehow its even worse than mainstream Protestantism. It takes the issue of easily being able to create heretical sect and mixes it with corrupted Roman Catholic doctrine (which was already bad enough uncorrupted).

Look into traditional Protestants such as Lutherans (I'm not talking about the gay sex women pastor denominations of Lutheranism). It doesn't have these same issues and is actually doctrinally sound in a way which neither Catholicism or Sedevacantism is.

[Anonymous No.22318591]

>>22316315
>Hello /lit/, I come to you as a "raised-Catholic" man of little faith. Per my interest in reigniting religious fervor within myself, I've recently been doing a deep dive on Christianity. As I believe is the case with many Christians, I am only interested in following the 'correct' form of Christianity. This path first led me to ""Traditional"" Catholicism and, eventually, to Sedevacantism. I fi
This is kind of hilarious. Really bad larps are like really bad drag or movies, where they can go full circle.

[Anonymous No.22318617]

>>22317995
>where would I even begin with going to Mass again?
....how the fuck is that a question as a Catholic? wtaf?

[Anonymous No.22318620]

>Is Sedevacantism a Doomsday Cult?
The whole of Christianity is, you imbecile.

[Anonymous No.22318649]

>the current Pope is a heretic and promotes globohomohedononihiloliberalism
>but the sedes are schizophrenic cryptoprotestants with no real solution
>but the EOC has schisms of its own as well as liberalizers and globohomo promoters
>but the Coptics/other eastern churches hold to a false Christology and are largely ethnic besides
>but the Protestants are, well, you know...
I'm a former Mormon currently fence-sitting between the RCC and EOC and the issues at hand make the choice very difficult. It seems like both sides have very good arguments against each other and for themselves. OP's points about the sedes highlight the most glaring problem with Catholicism, but they don't invalidate the Catholic arguments against the other options, either.

[Anonymous No.22318700]

>>22318649
I became a Catholic 4 years ago and realised that all of the options are bad. Sedevacantism seems the most consistent one but it will also bring you to the brink of despair and insanity. Idk about Eastern Orthodoxy but I wouldn't advise you to become a Catholic unless you're ready to go insane.

[Anonymous No.22318724]

>>22318700
I was already fairly insane when I unironically believed in Mormonism. After all the magic underwear, suicide blood oaths, secret magic ceremonies to release one from common morality, and polygamous space sex nothing could faze me.
I do lean towards the EOC but not so far that I believe the papacy should be dissolved or something. I think a reconciliation is possible at some point, but it would involve a fair amount of humbling on both sides.

[Anonymous No.22318829]

>>22318724
>involve a fair amount of humbling on both sides.
>he doesn't know about the Christmas sweeping fight
Uhhhh

[Anonymous No.22318856]

A church is a church. At some point you have to stop and think if you're at church to worship God or if you're at church to worship the church itself: Mortal idolatry. Are you at church to worship with love and joy in your heart, or do you just go church shopping quick to condemn and complain things are never good enough?

As long as the message of Christ our Lord endures, things are fine. If you are concerned about "degeneracy" or wharever internet meme from /pol/ ails you, then realize Vatican II was a long time ago and things are still fine. The real problem has been this new modern internet age, which is not Vatican II's fault. I would honestly only worry if a Vatican III is called. Greek Orthodox or some fringe radical fundamrntal protestant group are your only other alternative otherwise.

[Anonymous No.22318884]

>>22317995
I'm 22316788, I really appreciate the heartfelt response. As I said, I think Protestantism makes more sense. To elaborate, one thing that really helped me spiritually was hearing Protestant arguments about catholicity. A turning point was a video by Gavin Ortlund, a Baptist theologian. He recounted talking to Catholics and Eastern Orthodox who were obsessed with finding out what the one true church was, so they had this intricate knowledge of all these schisms and factional disputes and were petrified of attending the wrong church.

Then he pointed to the reformers, even those who thought the Pope was the antichrist said there was true Christianity in the Catholic church. It was a spiritually liberating moment for me because I realised I could dedicate myself to Christ without being wracked by the terror of not knowing which sub-faction was the only true church.

Unfortunately I can't remember which video it was, but I'll link an excellent one where Gavin Ortlund talked to Jordan B. Cooper, a Lutheran theologian who's very traditional and high church:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nzRm_Jur2Q

[Anonymous No.22318896]

>>22318856
Oh come on at least let the larper try to join the Maronites or Palmarians, y'all don't even know enough about the church to give bad advice

[Anonymous No.22318987]

>>22318896
it is just painful to watch anon change religions like a young woman changes clothes. the internet has really fried this man

[Anonymous No.22319061]

>>22316414
Judaism itself is not waiting for the end of the world, they're waiting for their Messiah to kick everyones asses and for Israel to be the center of human civilization that we all serve.

[Anonymous No.22319093]

>>22316816
I do think you're on to something by distinguishing them as American Catholics. I guess they always need to feel like the sole heirs of humanity.

[Anonymous No.22319105]

>>22316960
What is he imposing that's heritical? And stick to the original statement of "imposing". What is being demanded that Catholics do that isn't Catholic?

[Anonymous No.22319148]

>>22316808
>Your view of Sedevacantism is tainted by the Dimond brothers
Are there actual sedevacantist YouTubers? I remember when the belief was a Catholic fringe community with barely any believers that weren’t geriatric boomers. The only celebrity I’ve ever known to be a believer and talk about it was Mel Gibson and everything the man has said honestly made sense. Is sedevactism the new religious grift?

[Anonymous No.22319158]

>>22317995
>but where would I even begin with going to Mass again?

Just find the nearest church and go on Sunday. Go to Confession beforehand so you can receive the Eucharist.

Also, pray to God that your faith is strengthened. The one thing that's going to keep you sane is faith. Real faith. Intellectual assent can only get you so far, at some point you're going to have to believe with your whole person, if you don't already.

Everyone ITT should pray that God increases their faith. Remember the parable of the mustard seed. Even a little true faith can change everything.

[Anonymous No.22319168]

>>22319105
>what is heresy?
I’m just going to be lazy and tell you everything, without even being hyperbolic, everything that son of a bitch says is heretical. There’s a reason there’s never been a Jesuit poor before.

[Anonymous No.22319172]

>>22319168
Ha, you fool. Everything he says may be heresy (it's not even), but what does he impose? Basically nothing that I know of.

[Anonymous No.22319960]

>>22319168

Edgy
Non critical thinker

>>22319172
This

>>22316889
Based Rosary Prayer
God Bless You, Anon
YGMI

[Anonymous No.22319963]

>>22318617
This

[Anonymous No.22320012]

>>22316315
>>"What happens when the final living, correctly-ordained member of the Church dies?"
it means the end of the apostolic tradition, m'boy. it's over. the only authentic thing left is the rosary prayer.

you shouldn't be afraid though, it can be quite liberating as it also means we will be receiving a new tradition soon - as long as you don't get swallowed up by modernity.

[Anonymous No.22320020]

>>22320012
lol Sedes managed to reinvent Seekerism but with Marian characteristics

[Anonymous No.22320024]

>>22320020
imagine shilling for the counter-church

[Anonymous No.22320025]

>>22320024
Even Pope Michael's position makes more sense than that one.

[Anonymous No.22320038]

>>22320025
cope

[Anonymous No.22320050]

>>22319172
>>22319960
You’re both insufferable faggots. I understand why you’re gay for this pope. He forgives you for your cock sucking.

[Anonymous No.22320054]

>>22319960
>*non-critical thinker
If you’re going to pretend to be intelligent, it’s best to try and do it while not butchering the language you’re shit talking in. But at least you tried to feel intelligent, that must have felt nice for a moment. Back down to reality where you belong and all that.

[Anonymous No.22320056]

>>22316315
Watch what jay duet has to say about this. Begome orthodox.

[Anonymous No.22320063]

>Hello /lit/, I come to you as a "raised-Catholic" man of little faith. Per my interest in reigniting religious fervor within myself, I've recently been doing a deep dive on Christianity. As I believe is the case with many Christians, I am only interested in following the 'correct' form of Christianity. This path first led me to ""Traditional"" Catholicism and, eventually, to Sedevacantism. I find "Sedevacantist" Catholicism (aka: Catholicism) very tempting to subscribe to, as it should go without saying that the current "pope" is a heretic, and not actually a pope at all. There are many reasons as to why this is the case, which I shall leave to be explained by my betters, but I digress. That all being said, there is a serious, existential problem with the Sedevacantist position that is obvious even to an untrained, practicing, and nigh-on faithless man such as myself. I am hoping that somebody here can properly explain to me why my belief is not correct.

>Here is the question I always ask...
>"What happens when the final living, correctly-ordained member of the Church dies?"
>...And here is the answer I always receive,
>"The Church is immortal, it cannot die because its immortality is guaranteed by the promise of Christ."

>This non-answer is extremely troubling. Usually, it comes delivered by the mouth of some Ned Flanders lookalike whom has no solution for the unprecedented, bureaucratic predicament which the true Church currently finds itself embattled with. When pressed as to how we can resolve the current bureaucratic predicament of the Church, so as to prevent the Church from dying, said individual usually answers by denying that there is an effective solution (or else not providing one/ denying that it is our job to provide one,) snorting a line of cocaine, and faithfully proclaiming that "God will do it for us." Besides being utter horse shit, I interpret these answers as effectively creating a timeline, at the end of which we will either see the complete destruction of the Catholic faith, or the literal end of the world.

[Anonymous No.22320066]

>>22316315
Greentext is cap we camping out here

[Anonymous No.22320153]

>>22316315
>he doesn't know
You're not gonna like this info, but given the current state of things, ALL traditions forecast the end of the world being at hand. And not in some cop out "in relation to eternity, 2000 years is 'at hand!'" kind of way. Idk man, play deus ex or something. The goberment has probably already built the antichrist. In fact, we've probably been living under his rule unknowingly for decades. Don't you understand that once you, a layman, a fucking BUG can be deliberating on which flavor of a religion seems the most hip and trend it's already way, way over? YOU are deciding the ordinary magisterium because YOU have been so dutifully combing through youtube debates and compare/contrasting the "symbolism" of different eras of liturgical art for X months now. Is that how any of it is supposed to work? Are you supposed to reason or eenie meenie mienie mow your way to heaven? To acquire it through good taste? The pope has committed the abomination of desolation on one hand, and on the other orthodox dandy-dos have no substantive answer for what it means when I can print icons out on pink construction paper or save them in a file next to my porn folder. The answers, given in twenty minute clips, ending in a flush of synth-wave or royalty free gregorian chants, hit like an insult when you go out into the world and learn that "it's grimace's birthday at mcdonalds!". Just think for a minute on how many coca-colas you've been subliminally messaged into drinking and realize that that is just a benign and visible example of something so insidious it borders on the absurd, namely that your monopoly on your own thoughts and actions never existed. And that would be the LEAST of the ramifications if you would just allow yourself to say out loud in your head how you actually felt about any of this ridiculous, embarrassing, and paltry mass virtue signaling circle jerk COPE fest.

[Anonymous No.22320171]

>>22320153
I like the modern world. It's neat and it's confusing everyone who adheres to dogmatic truths.

[Anonymous No.22320224]

>>22316500
third option is such a strain on mental health if you’re not a total neet/hikikomori with no friends and family

[Anonymous No.22320227]

>>22320224
*i mean apocalyptic/sede option

[Anonymous No.22320233]

>>22320153
May I introduce you to something known as lithium?

[Anonymous No.22320247]

>>22316500
"Regular trads" in real life are conservative lawyers and people from similar fields. The edgy online tradcath types don't actually go to masses.

[Anonymous No.22320691]

>>22320153
Sanest catholic on this board

[Anonymous No.22320722]

>>22320153
>that pic
lmao

[Anonymous No.22320756]

All this stuff is the reason i just became protestant. Christianity today is too much of a systemic mess, may God have mercy on me if I made the wrong choice.

The existence of the great schism already brought into question of going to Hell for making the wrong choice between Orthodoxy & Catholicism so why not? It's certainly more alive than NO today, which is the most spiritually dead and unedifying thing I have ever experienced. There is no point in me going along with it if I hate every second of it and it leaves me spiritually hungry. Even with missing the Eucharist I feel that we all are so unworthy of it, just like those people who show up to church for the first time in the year for the Christmas mass and decide to take the bread (which is administered by a laywoman) like it's nothing, it's just all so laughable.

[Anonymous No.22321353]

>>22318987
>the internet has really fried this man
people who say shit like this are always the most internet obsessed

[Anonymous No.22321371]

>>22316315
>come to you as a "raised-Catholic" man of little faith. Per my interest in reigniting religious fervor within myself, I've recently been doing a deep dive on Christianity. As I believe is the case with many Christians, I am only interested in following the 'correct' form of Christianity. This path first led me to ""Traditional"" Catholicism and,
Kek OP wants me to believe a Trad Cath would do any of this and not just buy the scapular. What's next a Buddhist who decides to make meat Jesus sculptures instead of reading verses?

[Anonymous No.22321401]

>>22320722
it was written by this guy
https://twitter.com/insiliconot

[Anonymous No.22321775]

>>22320153
What too much blackpill does to a mf

[Anonymous No.22321847]

>>22318987
>like a young woman changes clothes. the
Then why give them shitty clothing options when any Catholic would know the level of diva potential for even a flip young woman to attain within the Church? The larpers on here like you and OP have no appreciation for lore, like a Tolkien fan might make you tap out past the fifth book, and consequently are easily spotted as interlopers with no foundation for your imagination to run wild, being fenced in by your ignorance. We could get OP into a church which would force him to read books or be called impious and unfashionable, and you want to let him keep reading twitter for shein's next plastic knock off instead. You're a crime against literature, religion, the environment, good taste, and women.

[Anonymous No.22322107]

>>22317995
Go to an SSPX or FSSP chapel and ask the priest there for guidance instead of a mongolian basket weaving forum.
>>22320247
This, trad parishes are networking spots for ultra-conservative succesful middle class men.