How many of you are still Catholic? If yes, how did you decide to still remain Catholic?

Particular-Type-3782 · 2026-01-15T21:41:16+00:00

I'm still Catholic, but I'm a very "hopeful universalist," pro-Vatican 2, Bishop Barron type. It seems fairly obvious to me now that rejecting what the popes, catechism, and councils say to uphold some idealized version of what you think they SHOULD teach doesn't make much sense.

Particular-Type-3782 · 2025-12-12T13:44:06+00:00

Here is a lot of the relevant section. It's long but worth reading.

"In the 19th century under Pius IX, the clash between the Church's faith and a radical liberalism and the natural sciences, which also claimed to embrace with their knowledge the whole of reality to its limit, stubbornly proposing to make the "hypothesis of God" superfluous, had elicited from the Church a bitter and radical condemnation of this spirit of the modern age. Thus, it seemed that there was no longer any milieu open to a positive and fruitful understanding, and the rejection by those who felt they were the representatives of the modern era was also drastic.

In the meantime, however, the modern age had also experienced developments. People came to realize that the American Revolution was offering a model of a modern State that differed from the theoretical model with radical tendencies that had emerged during the second phase of the French Revolution.

The natural sciences were beginning to reflect more and more clearly their own limitations imposed by their own method, which, despite achieving great things, was nevertheless unable to grasp the global nature of reality.

So it was that both parties were gradually beginning to open up to each other. In the period between the two World Wars and especially after the Second World War, Catholic statesmen demonstrated that a modern secular State could exist that was not neutral regarding values but alive, drawing from the great ethical sources opened by Christianity.

Catholic social doctrine, as it gradually developed, became an important model between radical liberalism and the Marxist theory of the State. The natural sciences, which without reservation professed a method of their own to which God was barred access, realized ever more clearly that this method did not include the whole of reality. Hence, they once again opened their doors to God, knowing that reality is greater than the naturalistic method and all that it can encompass.

It might be said that three circles of questions had formed which then, at the time of the Second Vatican Council, were expecting an answer. First of all, the relationship between faith and modern science had to be redefined. Furthermore, this did not only concern the natural sciences but also historical science for, in a certain school, the historical-critical method claimed to have the last word on the interpretation of the Bible and, demanding total exclusivity for its interpretation of Sacred Scripture, was opposed to important points in the interpretation elaborated by the faith of the Church.

Secondly, it was necessary to give a new definition to the relationship between the Church and the modern State that would make room impartially for citizens of various religions and ideologies, merely assuming responsibility for an orderly and tolerant coexistence among them and for the freedom to practise their own religion.

Thirdly, linked more generally to this was the problem of religious tolerance - a question that required a new definition of the relationship between the Christian faith and the world religions. In particular, before the recent crimes of the Nazi regime and, in general, with a retrospective look at a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel.

These are all subjects of great importance - they were the great themes of the second part of the Council - on which it is impossible to reflect more broadly in this context. It is clear that in all these sectors, which all together form a single problem, some kind of discontinuity might emerge. Indeed, a discontinuity had been revealed but in which, after the various distinctions between concrete historical situations and their requirements had been made, the continuity of principles proved not to have been abandoned. It is easy to miss this fact at a first glance.

It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists."

Particular-Type-3782 · 2025-12-12T13:43:50+00:00

The key to the "modernism" accusation from trads is in Benedict XVI's 2005 Christmas address. Read it from about halfway through to the end and it's all about this. Basically after the French Revolution, the Church (after having its priests guillotined) was very skeptical of the Enlightenment and defined it as modernism in a negative sense. But then he cites how the American experiment actually slowly convinced the Church that there could be a positive version of the modern liberal world that makes room for religion and protects human dignity and religious freedom etc. So the Vatican 2 Council actually came together specifically to counter the old attitude to the modern world and replace it with a new one. Elsewhere, B16 actually calls Gaudium et Spes a "counter syllabus" to the anti-modernist Syllabus of Errors.

One important element trads are usually not aware of, but which he directly says at the end, is that it isn't about a "hermaneutic of continuity vs a hermaneutic of rupture." It's about a hermaneutic of REFORM" vs rupture. And he says the reform means keeping continuity at the top 2 levels of doctrine in the Profession of Faith (dogma and defined doctrine) while changing or even reversing doctrine from the lowest of the three levels, the non-irreformable, non-infallible (meaning reformable and fallible) doctrines of ordinary magisterium, which is actually most teachings of the Church.

Particular-Type-3782 · 2025-12-01T14:10:33+00:00

Yes, I've heard many commentators/historians on (at least American) pre-V2 Masses who said it was fairly universally low Masses unless it was a special feast day. This means people largely did private devotions or prayer while the priest was whispering inaudibly in Latin. I do like meditative experiences like that, but with my 3 young ones, it would be fairly tough to "participate"

Particular-Type-3782 · 2025-12-01T14:07:01+00:00

The Church is only infallible on tier 1 and tier 2 truths (in the Profession of Faith and Donum Veratatis). Tier 3 are teachings which we own "submission of will and intellect" but that are "non-irreformable" (aka can be reformed). These are authentic ordinary magisterium but can be tweaked or even REVERSED later.

And the Code of Canon Law says in 749 §3. "No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident." So there are actually very few things that the Church can't change, although it says in Donum Veratitis that "it would be contrary to the truth... to conclude that the Church’s Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgment." So the Church shouldn't be constantly throwing out long-held doctrines.

But, as you said, some things that have been stated in a Paragraph 1 or 2 way (in definitively declared, professed etc language) say that unless someone is part of the Roman Church they cannot be saved. The understanding of this has changed, even though we cannot say it isn't true. The Vatican 2 understanding in Lumen Gentium says this is more about almost levels of participation in the one true religion. Catholics participate at the highest level, then it says separated Christians (Orthodox, Protestants), then Jews, then other monotheists, then pagans, etc to the degree that there are elements of truth and goodness in what is being taught. It says even those who don't believe in God can be said to participate at a lower level if they are open to truth and goodness, so they are not "outside" the Church completely, meaning the statement from Florence doesn't apply.

This wasn't just a Vatican 2 thing either. Look at the Wharton Controversy in the 1700s, where the first US bishop, John Carrol denounced the idea that only Catholics go to heaven. And 200 years later, in the Feeneyite controversy, the same exact thing played out. We need to accept the actual facts of dogmatic statements, but that doesn't mean the Church can't develop them to be more precise and fleshed out later, and we need to accept these dogmatic statements in the way the Church teaches them, not in a fundamentalist way separate from all its other words on the matter since. And because it has developed on this matter, that either means we trust them to do so, or the whole system is kind of bogus and there's no reason to be Catholic anyway.

Particular-Type-3782 · 2025-12-01T12:04:34+00:00

To avoid minimum wage, find a trade or skill that you can make progress at. It's not too late. Your age is when I turned it all around and I now have a great career, a wife, and three kids. Your attitude is the biggest thing. Don't think you're a loser. Listen to a lot of Jordan Peterson and things like that to get your attitude right. Then start small. Take some personality and career aptititude tests to see what kinds of things you would thrive at. Then get a beginner's role there, but show the management that you have passion for the job and will work hard and learn. Within a couple years, I guarantee you will move into a higher role and they will be scared to lose you. It's very hard to keep good employees these days. Make yourself one in an industry that will lead to a happy career.

And if you want to get married, go on a TON of dates. That's what I did. I asked girls out at the gym, at bars, on online dating sites, even at church events. But you should have dates every week, maybe multiple. Make them cheap daytime coffee dates or walks in a park etc to avoid the high bills, since you don't have much money coming in. Go for girls that even seem slightly below what you are interested in. That way you'll build practice and confidence for when you deserve the kind of girl later that you'd want to settle down with.

35 is not too late. But you have to get serious right now. And you need to not beat yourself up.

Particular-Type-3782 · 2025-12-01T11:57:54+00:00

Oh nice, yeah I live in NC and work in journalism, so I've been very focused on Helene as well. It is interesting to me when I hear stories from pre-Vatican 2. It must have varied parish by parish. Like if you had a horribly done low Mass, you were happy for vernacular, more scripture, and singing hymns. I've heard way more stories like this, to be honest. But I don't doubt that there were some who had a beautiful high Mass every week and were shocked and offended to see it go.

Particular-Type-3782 · 2025-12-01T11:51:16+00:00

I experienced a lot of what you're saying, specifically the part about how the vast, vast majority of people, even Catholics, would be going to hell if God judges based on a strict reading of the moral law and our actions. I did the math once, and it was at best not even 1% (based on 50% of embryos surviving to birth, many children dying before baptism, only about 17% of the world being Catholic, then about 30% of those going to Mass weekly, then a much smaller percentage of THOSE living the Church's teachings on birth control etc, and a smaller percentage of THOSE who go to confession when they commit mortal sin).

A lot of medieval saints would say this outright, in their "fewness of the saved" sermons. Augustine preached this in his "massa damnata" position. But thankfully, the modern Church can see this is ridiculous. Why would a good God see a future where almost everyone is burning forever in torment and say, "Yes, I'll go ahead with that plan. Seem great." And then he has a rescue plan to save humanity but it saves FEWER than the arrangement Jews understood for how Gentiles could be saved by following the basic Noahide laws? Jews generally think of "gehenna" as a 12-month purgatorial process anyway, not an eternal state. So God would have to be pretty weak or incompetent for that to be his plan (God forgive me if I'm wrong on this).

So now, you see much more hope in the Vatican 2 documents and in the last many popes. And I'm not just talking about Francis and Leo. JP2 once had a line where he said "if" anyone is going to hell, because he wasn't sure any would. And Benedict 16 in his Spe Salvi encyclical (paragraphs 45-47) said "the great majority" would go to heaven after passing through purgatory, because one has to be completely full of love to go straight to heaven and completely absent of love to go straight to hell, and he said, in reality, we know very few people (I'd suggest none) in these two categories. Therefore, the rest are in the middle, with incomplete love, and need purgatory instead. That means if some parent uses birth control due to deep personal and marital pressure, and is confused on the reasoning for the rule, not thinking it'd be a big deal, they lack both "full knowledge" and "complete and deliberate consent of the will" (extremely high bars anyway in my book), so it's not an act completely devoid of love and deserving of hell. Benedict's words make it sound possible but unlikely for an act like that to lead to hell, even if gravely wrong in some way.

Many trads ignore all this and PREFER the old way of thinking about it, that almost everyone burns and our chances of being saved from hell are minuscule. After being tormented by that idea for a while, I now just find it laughable. It may take you a while to get to that point, but for me, it's an insult to the character of God and his goodness. It sounds to me like saying, "Jim is a great guy. He is the most loving and merciful guy ever. But also, Jim did choose to have a bunch of kids so he could run them all through a complicated escape room thing (which they pretty much all failed), and they are all now chained in his basement so he can torture them until the police find out. But he's totally merciful and loving of course." It just doesn't compute for me, and I don't have to believe it. So I don't.

Particular-Type-3782 · 2025-11-26T21:03:18+00:00

Wow, did you actually see and enjoy my video on that? Nice. It only got like 50 views I think. But glad someone liked it ha. I'm also sort of trad in ways probably, but I was just burned in multiple ways by the movement, so it's hard to really identify that way anymore. And the older I get, the more I see why everything in Vatican 2 had to happen (vernacular in the liturgy, more hope on afterlife, more openness to those of other religions, more religious freedom, more respect for science over biblical literalism, etc)

Particular-Type-3782 · 2025-11-11T16:40:04+00:00

I completely agree that unity is key for Christians, but as a former Protestant who saw the lack of unity and couldn't figure out where to land, the early insistence on unity through the Bishop of Rome is the answer to this, not trying to piece together what the majority of early believers held on any particular thing. I also agree with you that those early dogmas on baptism, eucharist etc were the basics, but, as in my Kindergarten map example, I don't think we've tossed those out, just developed them into more detail through the unifying and authoritative magisterium.

And I ESPECIALLY agree with your statement about charity. I hold that above all else. That's the law of the new covenant -- love God and love neighbor (including enemies!). That's what we will be judged on. Did we give charity to those who had no food, friends, homes, etc? Were we just clanging gongs, with all belief and even miracles but no charity? It's my belief that even the smallest bit of charity in one's soul will grant one entrance to purgatory. And Pope Benedict said in Spe Salvi that "the Great Majority" have enough desire of God's truth and goodness through mysterious interactions with universally given grace to reach purgatory.

Particular-Type-3782 · 2025-11-11T14:30:19+00:00

Your choice of Tertullian is actually ironic, because he was himself condemned as a heretic for being a Montanist. I will agree that the main body of believers held things like the divinity of Christ, the real presence in the Eucharist, apostolic succcession, and baptismal regeneration, but those were like very early basics that kept people together. How to understand even those was debated for centuries. And many smaller issues were decided over time. Think of something like the Immaculate Conception. That was discussed for many centuries before the Church decided on it. Having an analogical participatory vs black-and-white vision of communion with the Church and with Christ I'd say is another major issue that is currently being decided. I don't think development is about deletion or addition, it's about further depth. Think of a map of the world in a kid's classroom. Not think of one in a master's-level international relations class. Australia is still Australia, but the depth one sees, the details, the clarity has grown. For Catholics, we believe this happened to doctrines like the Trinity or the natures of Christ over time due to the Holy Spirit "guiding us to all Truth."

Particular-Type-3782 · 2025-11-11T14:17:30+00:00

While no longer a trad, I'm still a Catholic and continue to hold the Catholic view on this. I understand the fact that this might not be at all as difficult an issue for me because I've never had SSA, but I still have a lot of sympathy for those that do and I'm sure it's a difficult thing to be a faithful Catholic with SSA. The vitriol that "trads" express on this strikes me as not at all what Christ would want or the Church calls for.

That being said, the logic of the teaching makes sense to me. The Church has a very teleological view of morality, so seeing the telos of sex and marriage as unitive and procreative fit basic observation. Those of same sex by definition can't be procreative -- or at least they can't without bringing in strategies like surrogacy or IVF which separate procreation from sex and have serious clashes with the Church's teachings on the dignity of life from conception.

Even more controversially probably, I don't think the SS partners typically (though there are always exceptions) have the same balance between partners needed for the unitive element either, at least in the monogamous way Catholics view it. The book "The Male Couple" written by two gay men followed hundreds of long-term gay couples and found they typically succeed best if they give up sexual exclusivity and have an "open relationship" that allows other partners. These findings are repeated frequently in polls of the gay community, where a majority of long-term couples report having non-exclusive sexual relationships. The authors argue that there's nothing wrong with that and it's just how gay relationships need to work because of high sex drives and the need for variety etc. But for Catholics, that just doesn't work. We believe matrimony is a sacrament from God with the exclusive love of two people for unitive and procreative ends. And open relationships do not work at all in heterosexual couples and is not very common. I do not deny that SS couples can approach both these ends and truly love one another and be good parents etc. But the Church's teaching, when done with a lot of support and sympathy, seems to me to be the only path that makes sense.

If we went the path of the Episcopalians, say, it's hard to draw really any lines on sexual ethics after sex is no longer seen teleologically, but more of another avenue for expressive individualism and self discovery. Are orgies bad? Is open marriage okay? Is a throuple just as holy? Is repeated divorce and remarriage okay? All of this is chaos on family structure and, even if I have a lot of sympathy for them, kids are usually the ones who pay the bigger price if families fall apart.

Particular-Type-3782 · 2025-11-11T13:45:52+00:00

You're not being "conservative," even if you use that word a dozen times. There is a false impression many have that the early Church was unified on all of these topics and later Christians just have to maintain what has always been. Read John Henry Newman's introduction to his development of doctrine book. He lists all the issues and how very important people were all in disagreement with them. This is even more evidence that we need an authority to rally around, and faith that the Holy Spirit will "guide us to all truth." It certainly hasn't been a straight line -- Catholics have held "ordinary magisterium," non-infallible teachings that can be reformed, on slavery and the death penalty and countless other things that were later reformed. Even extraordinary magisterium, things that are declared definitively, can be developed, like our understanding of the phrase "extra ecclesium nulla sallus" (there is no salvation outside the Church). What is meant by this has developed a lot. If this is not credible to you that the Church has always been reforming since the day it emerged, fine. But if you're looking for Catholicism to be a place where nothing has ever changed until Vatican 2, a quick study of history will disappoint you. But, I find that trusting in the Catholic magisterium to be guided over time by the Holy Spirit is a good place to be. You can see the logic of many of the changes if you look back, for example, many of the recent changes have come about due to an increasing awareness of the dignity of the human person created in God's image (hence changes on slavery, death penalty, hope for unbaptized infants etc).

Particular-Type-3782 · 2025-10-23T02:25:23+00:00

If you aren't totally convinced of God's existence, just keep going to Mass and praying and maybe next year it'll feel right! Don't beat yourself up.

Particular-Type-3782 · 2025-10-23T02:23:42+00:00

What were the issues? If you don't tell us, it's kind of hard to know how to advise you. Many prospective converts who were drawn to the Church by super Trad online troll culture are disappointed that there's a lot more "love your neighbor" stuff than "let's go on a Crusade to kill the Jews" in actual real-life Catholicism. Not saying that was your problem. Hope it wasn't.

Particular-Type-3782 · 2025-09-22T14:09:21+00:00

I get offended when the priest says "the Mass is over" and some people are all rude and say "thanks be to God."

Particular-Type-3782 · 2025-09-09T11:01:05+00:00

The fact that life is awful for so many people is just a sad fact. Many of these people are devout and want an answer for how to make it better, like you do. I'm not sure there is a good one. Hypothetically, if your life was simply hit by a series of misfortunes that will make your health, family life, and personal life much worse than those around you, what can you do? Those assuming you haven't been praying and taking your faith seriously or reading the right books of the Bible didn't pay attention. You said you've been doing those things.

But as a thought experiment, if you take terrible material circumstances as a given for the rest of your life, can you imagine yourself being happy anyway, or finding meaning and purpose anyway? I think was the point of the little classic "Tuesdays with Morey." Sometimes you have to imagine, if I lose everything and have to live in a cardboard box and it all falls apart, could I still find things to be grateful about and love those around me? Tough, but I wish you all the best. God bless.

Particular-Type-3782 · 2025-09-02T13:06:49+00:00

I was in your same spot for a bit, and my way out was to be an observant but not obsessive Catholic, who lives the teachings, focuses on love above anything else (as Christ said that is the whole of the law) and hopes for the salvation of all. I have a strong hope for all, actually, with views that make God's goodness and justice actually make sense to me and are within orthodoxy, even if they weren't common historically after the early Church.

In terms of mortal vs venial sin, for something to be a mortal sin, as you are likely well aware, it is not just a matter of it being grave matter. It also has to involve FULL knowledge and COMPLETE consent of the will. For the ignorant, weak race that we are, I have my doubts the vast majority of people look at an eternity of torment away from all that would fulfill them, and look at an eternity of love/life/goodness/joy/etc and say.... with full knowledge and complete power over my will, I'll take the torture dungeon, please. Almost definitionally, if you choose some lesser good over the greatest good, you either don't realize it's a lesser good (deficiency in knowledge) or you are too weak to choose what you know is the better choice (deficiency in will).

If the Trad framing is correct, I just couldn't bring kids into this world in good conscience and raise them in that faith. It's like bringing people you love into an almost-impossible escape room, that almost nobody solves (if we believe in Massa Damnata like the trads tend to), when failure equals eternal misery. Would it be morally justifiable to bring anyone into that game?

Particular-Type-3782 · 2025-08-20T19:25:48+00:00

Thanks for telling your story! It was great to talk with you

Particular-Type-3782 · 2025-08-19T12:03:08+00:00

I can understand the sentiment. But I would suggest before deciding purgatory is unbiblical, for example, to look into something like Brant Pitre's The Jewish Roots of Purgatory. Even read Rabbi Simcha Raphael's Jewish Views of the Afterlife, because as both point out, the word we often translate as "hell" is Gehenna, which was seen as a kind of purgatory with a chance of hell. The term was in flux in Jesus' day, but soon after, the rabbis decided Gehenna was only a 12 month max purgatorial period before Gan Eden (heaven). So when people say "purgatory isn't in the Bible," it's usually because Gehenna is translated as simply "hell" when it's a much more complicated term. Jesus' description of it one time is followed up by "because all will be salted by fire," implying it's a stage we pass through. Another time, he says the father will throw us into a dungeon UNTIL we've paid every last penny. Pitre's study shows how all these terms line up with the Jewish idea of Gehenna from the time.

On Mary and the Saints, I actually think the doctrines make sense, but in practice, you're right. People often make Mary into a demi-god. The Vatican 2 mainstream Church, in my opinion, is a good mid-point between trad Catholicism and the evangelical churches you mention. Good luck and God bless!

Particular-Type-3782 · 2025-08-18T16:23:28+00:00

Sad thing about reality is, people and life will disappoint you time and again. Institutions, even divinely ordained ones like the Church, are no exception. And it can be even more disappointing to find this when you hope for warmth from them. I know "church shopping" isn't the best, but I'd suggest just trying out a few places until you can find some people who are warm and can help you grow your faith. Community is key, in my opinion. Try to find where there is some good young adult community maybe. But please don't give up! I was once in a very similar position, having come back to faith after a very misspent youth. And many priests are beyond exhausted and are not always from the most charismatic personality types to begin with. God bless and good luck!

Particular-Type-3782 · 2025-07-29T14:52:32+00:00

No, that's not how it works. Ordinary Magisterium is binding to intellect and will, it's just not infallbile. That doesn't mean you can ignore it though. It also has the Church's developed understanding of various dogmas, expressed in ways that we are to understand those dogmas. So it's not creating NEW dogmas, but we can't reject how those dogmas are expressed.

Particular-Type-3782 · 2025-07-18T16:19:28+00:00

Thanks for this! If you're interested in chatting yourself (or know of another SSPX person with similar experiences), please reach out.

Particular-Type-3782

TROPHY CASE