Quote from: AnonymousCatholic

I ultimately reject most of the modern Church's teachings

What teachings are these?

Theological Position: Sede Vacante

The Roman Catholic priests of the Religious Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen profess and adhere to the Catholic Faith as it has been consistently Pope Pius XIItaught throughout the centuries since the time of Christ. With the death of Pope Pius XII and with the convocation of the Second Vatican Council, an unprecedented situation has befallen the Church, which threatens her very doctrines and worship. In order to provide for the preservation of the Catholic Faith and the traditional Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and Sacraments, the following statement has been drawn up for the purpose of clearly defining the actual position that these priests have taken.

I. VATICAN COUNCIL II: Convoked by John XXIII for the purpose of “updating” the Church, this council (held from 1962-65) decreed and implemented teachings which had been previously condemned by the Infallible Teaching Magisterium of the Church. The Second Vatican Council’s heretical teachings were primarily in the areas of religious liberty and false ecuмenism. These were previously condemned by:

   Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos (1832)
   Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura and Syllabus of Errors (1864)
   Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei (1865) and Libertas Humana (1888)
   Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas (1925) and Mortalium Animos (1928)
   Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis (1943)

THEREFORE, the Second Vatican Council is to be rejected as a false council because it has erred in its teachings on faith and morals.

II. NOVUS ORDO MISSAE: Following the Second Vatican Council, various commissions were established to modernize the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the traditional rites of the Sacraments. The particular commission established to modernize the Mass included well-known Protestant theologians. To use the words of a well-known Cardinal, Alfredo Ottaviani, in 1969: “(The Novus Ordo Missae) represents a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent.” The results of this modernization were a new definition of the Mass (reflecting Luther’s concept of the Last Supper), the alteration of the Offertory prayers to delete the concept of propitiatory Sacrifice, and the substantial alteration of the very words of Consecration (this alteration occurs in the vernacular translations). This new mass, known as the Novus Ordo Missae, contradicts previous infallible teachings and decrees of the Catholic Church, such as:

   Pope St. Pius V’s Quo Primum and De Defectibus,
   the Council of Trent’s decree on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (Session XXII),
   Pope Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae (1896),
   Pope Pius XII’s Mediator Dei (1947),
   Pope Pius XII’s Sacramentum Ordinis (1948).

THEREFORE, the Novus Ordo Missae, when offered with the altered words of Consecration, is an invalid Mass and in all other cases it is of doubtful validity. It always is a clear danger to one’s faith. For all these reasons, active participation in it would be a grave sin.

III. NEW RITES OF THE SACRAMENTS: That which has been said of the Novus Ordo Missae can, in the same respect, be said of the new Vatican II rites for the seven sacraments. To the degree that the matter, form and intention of each of the sacraments has been substantially altered, to that degree their validity must be questioned. The Catholic Church has, most certainly, always taught what the proper matter, form and intention are in the confecting of the sacraments.

THEREFORE, where the new rites have been employed, traditional priests should administer the Sacraments sub conditione as the situation may demand.

IV. MODERN VATICAN II CHURCH: The Catholic Church is identified as the true Church of Christ by her four marks (Unity, Holiness, Catholicity, and Apostolicity). Since the heretical teachings of Vatican II, the Novus Ordo Missae, and the new rites of the sacraments have manifestly been a departure from the Catholic Church’s traditional teachings, it must be concluded that this modern so-called “Catholic” Church no longer possesses the first two marks of the true Church — namely, Unity and Holiness. Its obvious departure over the past twenty-five years from what the Catholic Church has always held can lead to only one conclusion: a new ecuмenical Church has been established which stands in contradiction to the true Catholic Church.

V. MODERN HIERARCHY OF THE VATICAN II CHURCH: In the light of the above, it must be concluded that the modern hierarchy who have approved and implemented the errors of Vatican II no longer represent the Catholic Church and her lawful authority. This most certainly includes the one who confirmed, approved, decreed, and implemented these heretical teachings, namely Paul VI (Montini). Likewise included are his successors, namely, John Paul II (Wojtyla), Benedict XVI (Ratzinger), and Francis (Bergoglio), who have continued to implement these heretical teachings. Despite the lack of canonical warning and formal declaration of loss of office, their repeated acts of ecuмenism and their enforcement of the heresies of Vatican II and the new code of Canon Law, which are injurious to faith and morals, are manifestations of their pertinacity in heresy.

THEREFORE, as the First Vatican Council infallibly teaches: “‘Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My Church,’ these words are proven true by actual results, since in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved untainted...the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of Our Lord.” Further, since John Paul II has manifestly taught heresy, promoted ecuмenism and fostered interfaith worship, he clearly cannot be recognized as a successor of St. Peter in the primacy.

VI. THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW: In order to implement the teachings of Vatican II, it was necessary that the modernists change the Code of Canon Law (1917), as it contradicted their designs by reflecting the mind of the Church in her past doctrine and discipline. The new code contains a matter which should be most disturbing to the informed Catholic. According to the new law of the Modern Church, non-Catholics can, under certain circuмstances, petition the “sacraments” from a Catholic priest (without the non-Catholic abjuring his heretical beliefs), and the priests must administer them. The Council of Florence, as well as the 1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 731), strictly forbids this.

THEREFORE, as the universal laws of the Church are protected by her infallibility and cannot impose obligations opposed to faith and morals, the New Code must be considered as lacking all force of law. Moreover, it has been promulgated by those who no longer represent Catholic authority.

VII. COURSE FOR TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC PRIESTS: Due to the unprecedented situation in the Catholic Church and the moral responsibility of the faithful to receive certainly valid sacraments, traditional priests most certainly can and must continue the mission of the Catholic Church by sanctifying the faithful through the offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the administration of the Sacraments, and other pastoral works. The mind of the Church is that “the salvation of the people is the supreme law.” The 1917 Code of Canon Law will continue to be the priests’ guideline.

Quote from: Disputaciones

Quote from: AnonymousCatholic

I ultimately reject most of the modern Church's teachings

What teachings are these?

Yes, if he will only read them, look them up and ponder because maybe he was innocent before but now he has a lot to answer for.  

God gives us opportunities to see the truth and then he expects you to do your part, your part is not to close your eyes to the messenger but instead, look at the message.

I was alive and paying attention during Vatican II, and the historical record bears this out:  the final docuмent to be rammed through was Dignitatis humanae, the English title being the Declaration on Religious Freedom.  

It was as a matter of fact, the FIRST docuмent the progressive hijackers of the Council attempted to bring up for a vote at the start in 1962.  It met with such outspoken opposition that they shelved it and then kept trying to sneak it in over the subsequent 3 years, until at last, they were reduced to some creepy tricks to push it through at the last minute, seemingly when the remaining attendees were anxious to go home so they passed the thing just to get it over with.  The rest is history.  

Never before in the history of the Church has such liberalism been countenanced by Catholic bishops or a reigning Pope.  In fact, there have been particular condemnations against such bad doctrine by good popes such as Bl. Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors.  Pope Leo XIII and St. Pius X warned the faithful of the world about the movement to make religious freedom newly acceptable.  

There are other glaring departures from Sacred Tradition in Vat.II, but the above stands out as the most subversive.  

For example, the Church has always been identified as being one and the same as the Church of Christ, but in A.D. 1963 a docuмent (Lumen gentium) was prepared which subtly snuck in the word "subsistit" (Latin for subsists in, but has a more pernicious theological connotation in the Latin).  In LG 8, it says, "The Catholic Church ... subsists in the Church of Christ."  

That is a half truth, and a half truth is a whole lie, therefore it is a heresy -- if not literally in itself, then as it was interpreted and preached even to this day (A.D. 2016).  This was later revealed to have been the brainchild of a Protestant observer who recommended inserting "subsistit" to a Catholic peritus who then suggested it to his bishop, who then recommended it to the progressivist usurpers, who then inserted it into the docuмent.  Consequently, there were priests who took this heretical novelty into the parishes of the world and concluded to the Catholics who listened to them that "As of this publication, we now know that there is indeed salvation outside the Church."  Notice that Vatican II did not pronounce that EENS (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) has been abrogated (because a dogmatically defined doctrine cannot be abrogated, now or ever) but that is exactly what the liberals SAID had happened, and there was no one to correct them or to expose them officially of their error.  Such luminaries as Fr. Feeney warned Catholics for the previous 20+ years that this was a danger and was growing in popularity in the highest offices of the Church but there was not a word of correction or re-pronouncement of the thrice-defined EENS.

There are more examples.

ETA:  I am not a sedevacantist.

The post-conciliar theological principle is neo-modernism, and the theology that is based on it is known as the nouvelle theologie.  It is the idea that old dogmas or beliefs must be retained, yet not the traditional 'formulas': dogmas must be expressed and interpreted in a new way in every age so as to meet the 'needs of modern man'.  This is still a denial of the traditional and common sense notion of truth as adaequatio intellectus et rei (insofar as it is still an attempt to make the terminology that expresses the faith correspond with our modern lifestyle) and consequently of the immutability of Catholic dogma, yet it is not as radical as modernism.  It is more subtle and much more deceptive than modernism because it claims that the faith must be retained; it is only the 'formulas' of faith that must be abandoned--they use the term 'formula' to distinguish the supposedly mutable words of our creeds, dogmas, etc. from their admittedly immutable meanings.  Therefore, neo-modernism can effectively slip under the radar of most pre-conciliar condemnations (except Humani generis, which condemns it directly) insofar as its practitioners claim that their new and unintelligible theological terminology really expresses the same faith of all times.  In other words, neo-modernism is supposed to be 'dynamic orthodoxy': supposedly orthodox in meaning, yet always changing in expression to adapt to modern life (cf. Franciscan University of Steubenville's mission statement).  

Take extra ecclesiam nulla salus as a clear example of a dogma that has received a brutal neo-modernist re-interpretation: they claim that the old 'formula' that "there is no salvation outside the Church" must be abandoned; rather it is more meaningful to modern man to say that salvation is not in, but through, the Church;  people who are not in the Church may still be saved through the Church; thus, to them the dogma that "there is no salvation outside the Church" means that there is salvation outside the Church.  Hence see Ven. Pope Pius XII condemning those "reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation." (Humani generis 27).

http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2010/09/modernism-vs-neo-modernism-what-is.html