The song "I Wanna Be Adored" is really perfect for this post. The artistic beauty in that song, like the artistic beauty on display in so many old Catholic churches, is coupled with a sinister and ravenous demonic appetite to be worshipped. The devil is the OG psyopper, but God is greater.
I speak as a Protestant, of the evangelical/Pentecostal tradition no less (although trained in the Reformed tradition).
The recent, uhm, 'antics' of this new Pope are a poor reflection of the many amazing and true hearted Catholics who are my friends. My Catholic friends are more confused and disgusted than I am. I, however, even though I am not a Catholic (reasons to be discussed perhaps for another time, although this Pope's 'antics' aren't helping), find myself desiring to defend the tradition of the C church on behalf of my Catholic friends, because I don't think many of them see the true angle of what is occurring globally in the world.
The whole "conspiracy" of Agenda 2030 was to capture the most powerful and worldwide institutions, and flood these institutions with the globalist slop of extreme LGBT, Climate Change, Digital ID, CBDC, etc. It's the same demonic nonsense as always (remember the Olympics?)
In the same way that a parasite attacks and maims the host, the host itself can be clean, or good (aka the C Church at large), while the parasites sneak in, bite, and attack (globalist puppet Pope Berg and Leo. The Catholic Church, as one of the most powerful, if not most powerful institution, would be attacked the most by the demonically inspired globalists, who, it seems, have got their guy in the last two times at least.
I want to sympathize with the frustration of my Catholic friends, because there are plenty of problems with every denomination that in themselves could be defeaters for that tradition. The Reformed community gets stuck on determinism (thinking God predetermines who goes to heaven and hell), the Anglicans have gone woke (my current tradition of attendance), the evangelicals are clogged to the gills with dispensationalism, the pentecostals with prosperity gospel. Maybe I will get to my point.
There are deep, deep problems within Christendom, but, as it is written, "I have reserved for myself 7000 who have not bowed their knee to Baal." 1 King 19:18
The catholic church isn't and can't be a democracy of believers. But quite a lot of african, asian and south american adherents and their bishops may gain influence. A black pope may consider a crusade to Nigeria one day.
I'm always amazed at how humans justify the actions (and words) of those figures they perceive as higher than themselves in a given hierarchy.
This is truly one of the greatest inversions of truth. Across many religions and hierarchies of disparate domains, the reticence to be honest, to call out mistakes, and evil, opens the door to a corrupting influence on ourselves. And once it has been firmly established, by way of evidence clear as day, that institutions or organizations are no longer fit for purpose (let alone opening the discussion on whether they ever were), we proceed in some fantasy that next time will be different. And only the ignorant can believe that those flouting sin yesterday and condoning it today will somehow be good shepherds guiding ordinary folks to enlightenment tomorrow.
I quite liked the idea you wrote about how decadence and evil presents itself masked in its inversion, because off course it would. (I know it's not an original idea, but it's one worth remembering and reminding oneself of often)
And as you've written before, all these inversions are constantly in our faces, that only our blissful ignorance and unwillingness to confront it for what it is let's it run rampant.
I know very little of those cited in the essay, but thoroughly enjoy your musings. Like you I too struggle with my faith and I too dedicate myself to contemplation over my mistakes, sins, and most importantly, trying to better understand the meaning behind the pearls of wisdom left behind by teachers so that we might make our way to greener pastures outside the cave.
How hard it is for us to see who it is that occupies the most powerful position in Rome. Cloaked in years of tradition, doctrine and ritual, sacred and sacrosanct, the veil of reality imparts a mere suggestion, illusory at best. Yet, but yes, it must truly be… 🤡
As a baptized and confirmed (but no longer practicing) Catholic, I also struggle with what to do about the apostasy in Rome. On the one hand it's easy enough to ignore; I have an active faith life and church life that doesn't involve Roman Catholicism at all. But on the other hand I consider (most) Catholics to be Christian brothers and sisters, and it's hard to watch them struggle with the obvious deficiencies in their leaders.
Then there's the question of Christian authority, which is a knotty one to answer. The Catholic Church has a better argument than most to speak for Christ's church - or at least they would, if they weren't actively committing heresies. I love my current church, but it's a small group without any institutional support, so there's always the chance that "the Spirit leading us" is "we're just making things up". (No doubt many Catholics and Orthodox would argue the latter.)
I can't shake the feeling that God continues to have plans for the church in Rome, but I'm not sure which part of Revelation it stars in. I'm praying it'ends up in the witness role!
Well, you use the image of the Whore of Babylon in a classically Protestant way. People like Peter Kwasniewski and Stuart Chessman are willing to square the circle by denying Papal Infallibility, but they are not willing to surrender the visible unity of the Catholic Church and become Protestant. To have any hope of convincing people like that, you’re going to need to present an affirmative plan of what is to be done next, which is what Martin Luther did after 1517. I don’t see any Christian religious leader, Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox, who has any plan about what to do about Modernity.
That's why I stick to being a sort of protestant. If a church hierarchy goes bad, just form an independent church or roll up yet another denomination. It is the traditional American Way.
St. Paul told the churches to choose bishops from among themselves. Not exactly the hierarchy that came later. Elsewhere he wrote of different spiritual gifts and how different people had different gifts. The best manager (bishop) is not necessarily the best teacher or motivator.
Would be kind of nice to have a new denomination which retains some of the beautiful old traditions while being less dependent on professionals and more scrupulous to what is written in the Bible.
Correction: the Paul quote on choosing bishops was a false memory. But still the evidence shows that bishops were the managers of local churches with many other people taking different roles. See the quotes on spiritual gifts and the Body of Christ. They were about division of labor.
Kokx is a schismatic midwit loser. The solution is to reject both traditionalism and Leoism as counterfeits. None of this has anything to do with Vatican II or the revised liturgy. They are both orthodox. The solution is that neither Bergoglio nor Leo XIV are popes. But they were the first antipopes since Vatican II. Not 58 sede but 2022 sede. And be Catholic, yes. Find a holy priest and parish that is not counterfeit. Kokx and Kwasniewski and One Peter Five and the rest are counterfeits.
Not sure what this has to do with my essay. I mentioned Kokx because of the running tally he keeps on the latest degenerative blasphemy to roll off Rome's assembly line. I can't keep track of them all myself. There are only so many hours in a day.
Also, the antipopes were not selected in a vacuum, or by a roll of the dice. The rot runs much deeper than just a pair of wicked old men. You say: "None of this has anything to do with Vatican II or the revised liturgy." "None" and "anything" are big, bold words. It is called a "road to Hell" for good reason.
Vatican II and the Novus Ordo have magisterial authority and therefore cannot possibly be evil in any way, and thus to say or imply so is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. Both traditionalism and progressivism are forms of blasphemy against all the Holy Spirit. Kokx is an arch blasphemer on his way to hell.
Good point. I guess I just don't know why someone would be a Catholic. Honestly, I am not event exactly sure what a "Catholic" is. I am not trying to be demeaning as much as I am genuinely confused. Can you, as a Catholic, explain to me, a Protestant, what the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism is, from the Catholic perspective?
The heart of it, and why devout Catholics can’t leave for any denomination but Orthodoxy, is that they believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
They can’t partake of that Sacrament (and indeed no Protestant denomination to my knowledges claims to have it) in any Church that doesn’t have clergy ordained through apostolic succession - “a “genealogy” of holy orders tracing back to the “ordination” of the apostles by Christ. Without the power vested in the apostles, which they transferred to the next generation and next generation of leadership, an individual cannot be the conduit for the miracle that is transubstantiation, and the Sacrament of the Eucharist cannot exist.
Only Catholic and Orthodox Clergy have (and claim to have) apostolic succession and the power vested by Christ in the apostles to bring about the Sacrament of His real presence in the Eucharist.
For a Catholic, having partaken of the miracle of the Eucharist and felt Christ’s presence in it, all other worship is incomplete. So, Catholics have no where else to go for the Eucharist except validly ordained sedevacantists priests or Orthodox Churches with apostolic succession.
Which, to a devout Catholic, harkens back to Christ instituting the Eucharist. Telling his disciplines they must “gnaw” on his flesh. His followers being scandalized and falling away. Christ doubling down on his statement. And his remain apostles staying by his side because “To whom else can we go?”
For them there was no one else to go to. And for devout Catholics there is now where else to go to except Orthodoxy to experience the Sacrament of Christ’s real presence. They’re not fence sitters, they’re staying close to Christ through the real presence in the Eucharist despite the unfaithfulness of the Church hierarchy.
The Pope is the head of the bishops. He settles theological disputes that arise, guided by the holy spirit. This does not mean that he is necessarily a good and holy man (though we pray that he is). We believe that the holy spirit will prevent him from contradicting sacred doctrine (derived from Scripture and Tradition) in very specific, official, doctrine defining ("ex cathedra") statements. He can also use his authority to change the disciplines of the church (e.g. priestly celibacy) and other things (wording of prayers) but these changes may be good or bad.
Beyond that, he's a regular sinner like any of us. Catholics owe the pope allegiance in a similar way that you might traditionally owe your own father "allegiance." You owe him a certain amount of respect for his office ("your father") and you should obey his lawful commands. But that doesn't mean he's a saint or that he never makes mistakes, or that he's a divine being, or that you are "worshipping" him, or that you are putting him above your relationship with Christ.
And so, a Catholic Christian is someone who has an ordered relationship with the pope, and a non-Catholic Christian is someone who completely rejects the Pope. There are also "ultramontanists" who elevate the Pope beyond his deserved status; in practice this usually means they scold anyone who says the pope did anything wrong and/or imply that the pope is beyond all criticism. These people are deviating from Catholic teaching just as much as protestants.
This is basically my understanding of it as well. I would add that certain technologies and/or their driving forces have propelled both the “ultramotanists” and the modern popes to new heights of self-flattery and hubris. The Magic Mirrors on the Walls make inversion of vice and virtue much easier. But the path was always narrow.
The heart of being Catholic is living a Sacramental life.
We are saved by God’s grace, and respond with faith in the spiritual level and by practicing holiness on the physical level. The Sacraments are miracles instituted by Christ to help us grow in holiness, and are the reason you can describe someone as “being a practicing Catholic” but you don’t hear people say they are a “practicing Baptist”, for example.
Baptism, confirmation, reconciliation, Eucharist at a minimum. Marriage/holy orders as a vocation of called to it. And anointing of the sick (last rights) if you have access to a priest while dying.
Where the pope matters, is that these miracles can only be transmitted by validly ordained clergy, who have apostolic succession (ordain by someone who was ordained by someone who was ordained by someone…back to the apostles). The Pope is the leader of thy clergy and matters for Church governance and settling long term, very serious theological disputes.
But for the ordinary Catholic what matters is access to a validly ordained priest in order to have access to the Sacraments, to be able to practice holiness with the support of miracles instituted by Christ.
My understanding is that most Protestant denominations have only baptism/confirmation and marriage for sacraments. And they don’t claim to have reconciliation, the Eucharist, holy orders, or anointing of the sick.
So for a Catholic who draws close to Christ through reconciliation and sharing in His sacrifice through the Eucharist weekly or even daily, denominations that don’t and can’t offer those Sacraments (clergy lack apostolic succession) will be spiritually lacking for the Catholic individual. They would actually be moving father away from Christ by moving to a denomination that lacks those Sacraments, than they are by keeping access to those Sacraments by staying within the Church even though some or most of the validly ordained clergy are heretics. Heretics who were validly ordained can still offer the Sacraments.
I guess what I previously believed was that Catholics owed the Pope allegiance, whereas Protestants rejected the Pope's authority, only acknowledging the headship of Jesus Christ, not any earthly man as the ultimate spiritual leader. I have seen a lot of Catholics more or less reject this Pope even moreso than the last Pope. I am also mostly unfamiliar with the terms "Anti-Pope" and "Sedevacanist". I only know a little bit about the Avignon papacy.
I guess I don't know how a person can call himself a Catholic and reject the authority of the (apparent) Pope. Tho, there is probably more to the story than what I am currently aware of.
“The Pope” is an office, not the person. Just like “The President” is an office. A Pope could be elected unlawfully, leaving the seat vacant (the sedevactantist position) or could become a open heretic leaving the seat vacant in the same way that a person obtaining the office of the President through election fraud or committing treason after being lawfully elected would invalidating their holding of the office.
A Catholic can affirm the authority of the Pope as a position, but believe that the person currently holding the position did not obtain the position lawfully or has abdicated essential duties of the office (by committing Hersey for example) and therefore no longer holds the position lawfully
1. We must remember never to put our trust in earthly princes, even in the princes of the church. While the pope cannot bind the faithful to error, he is still human, and therefore prone to sin.
2. Much of the accusations of the church are misdirects, or not fully accurate (for example, the settling of migrants in America - this is Catholic charities (read: NGOs that aren't church entities like a parish or order is, but more like a subcontractor. The dealings are far more and far less shadowy than made out))
3. The far worse thing than anything mention, is allowing churches and cathedrals to be tourist sites, rather than places of worship.
Like every captain of the high seas has know for centuries, if you lose True North you can no longer navigate.
And like on the high seas, True North isn't found in Earthly men or structures.
Amen
The song "I Wanna Be Adored" is really perfect for this post. The artistic beauty in that song, like the artistic beauty on display in so many old Catholic churches, is coupled with a sinister and ravenous demonic appetite to be worshipped. The devil is the OG psyopper, but God is greater.
Glad you picked up on that.
The catholic church leadership is evil. They have nothing to do with the Holy Spirit.
Cardinal Vigano.
Look up his video updates. He has full knowledge of the demonic rot in the Vatican and their globalist ilk
https://rumble.com/vn52i6--sep-29-2021-the-vigan-tapes-18-questions-exposing-the-global-luciferian-ca.html
I don't need to.
https://markbisone.substack.com/p/the-great-unmasking
Great article (as expected).
I speak as a Protestant, of the evangelical/Pentecostal tradition no less (although trained in the Reformed tradition).
The recent, uhm, 'antics' of this new Pope are a poor reflection of the many amazing and true hearted Catholics who are my friends. My Catholic friends are more confused and disgusted than I am. I, however, even though I am not a Catholic (reasons to be discussed perhaps for another time, although this Pope's 'antics' aren't helping), find myself desiring to defend the tradition of the C church on behalf of my Catholic friends, because I don't think many of them see the true angle of what is occurring globally in the world.
The whole "conspiracy" of Agenda 2030 was to capture the most powerful and worldwide institutions, and flood these institutions with the globalist slop of extreme LGBT, Climate Change, Digital ID, CBDC, etc. It's the same demonic nonsense as always (remember the Olympics?)
In the same way that a parasite attacks and maims the host, the host itself can be clean, or good (aka the C Church at large), while the parasites sneak in, bite, and attack (globalist puppet Pope Berg and Leo. The Catholic Church, as one of the most powerful, if not most powerful institution, would be attacked the most by the demonically inspired globalists, who, it seems, have got their guy in the last two times at least.
I want to sympathize with the frustration of my Catholic friends, because there are plenty of problems with every denomination that in themselves could be defeaters for that tradition. The Reformed community gets stuck on determinism (thinking God predetermines who goes to heaven and hell), the Anglicans have gone woke (my current tradition of attendance), the evangelicals are clogged to the gills with dispensationalism, the pentecostals with prosperity gospel. Maybe I will get to my point.
There are deep, deep problems within Christendom, but, as it is written, "I have reserved for myself 7000 who have not bowed their knee to Baal." 1 King 19:18
The Lord God knows those who are truly is.
Onwards Christians soldiers.
The catholic church isn't and can't be a democracy of believers. But quite a lot of african, asian and south american adherents and their bishops may gain influence. A black pope may consider a crusade to Nigeria one day.
Oh, by the way, you need to finish the horror and the glory part three
I'm always amazed at how humans justify the actions (and words) of those figures they perceive as higher than themselves in a given hierarchy.
This is truly one of the greatest inversions of truth. Across many religions and hierarchies of disparate domains, the reticence to be honest, to call out mistakes, and evil, opens the door to a corrupting influence on ourselves. And once it has been firmly established, by way of evidence clear as day, that institutions or organizations are no longer fit for purpose (let alone opening the discussion on whether they ever were), we proceed in some fantasy that next time will be different. And only the ignorant can believe that those flouting sin yesterday and condoning it today will somehow be good shepherds guiding ordinary folks to enlightenment tomorrow.
I quite liked the idea you wrote about how decadence and evil presents itself masked in its inversion, because off course it would. (I know it's not an original idea, but it's one worth remembering and reminding oneself of often)
And as you've written before, all these inversions are constantly in our faces, that only our blissful ignorance and unwillingness to confront it for what it is let's it run rampant.
I know very little of those cited in the essay, but thoroughly enjoy your musings. Like you I too struggle with my faith and I too dedicate myself to contemplation over my mistakes, sins, and most importantly, trying to better understand the meaning behind the pearls of wisdom left behind by teachers so that we might make our way to greener pastures outside the cave.
Thank you for writing and sharing this essay 👍🏼
How hard it is for us to see who it is that occupies the most powerful position in Rome. Cloaked in years of tradition, doctrine and ritual, sacred and sacrosanct, the veil of reality imparts a mere suggestion, illusory at best. Yet, but yes, it must truly be… 🤡
Every age needs a good serpent stomper. Sad to see the heel needs directing towards Rome.
The serpent stomper is she who inverts Eve, Christ inverts Adam.
As a baptized and confirmed (but no longer practicing) Catholic, I also struggle with what to do about the apostasy in Rome. On the one hand it's easy enough to ignore; I have an active faith life and church life that doesn't involve Roman Catholicism at all. But on the other hand I consider (most) Catholics to be Christian brothers and sisters, and it's hard to watch them struggle with the obvious deficiencies in their leaders.
Then there's the question of Christian authority, which is a knotty one to answer. The Catholic Church has a better argument than most to speak for Christ's church - or at least they would, if they weren't actively committing heresies. I love my current church, but it's a small group without any institutional support, so there's always the chance that "the Spirit leading us" is "we're just making things up". (No doubt many Catholics and Orthodox would argue the latter.)
I can't shake the feeling that God continues to have plans for the church in Rome, but I'm not sure which part of Revelation it stars in. I'm praying it'ends up in the witness role!
Well, you use the image of the Whore of Babylon in a classically Protestant way. People like Peter Kwasniewski and Stuart Chessman are willing to square the circle by denying Papal Infallibility, but they are not willing to surrender the visible unity of the Catholic Church and become Protestant. To have any hope of convincing people like that, you’re going to need to present an affirmative plan of what is to be done next, which is what Martin Luther did after 1517. I don’t see any Christian religious leader, Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox, who has any plan about what to do about Modernity.
That's why I stick to being a sort of protestant. If a church hierarchy goes bad, just form an independent church or roll up yet another denomination. It is the traditional American Way.
St. Paul told the churches to choose bishops from among themselves. Not exactly the hierarchy that came later. Elsewhere he wrote of different spiritual gifts and how different people had different gifts. The best manager (bishop) is not necessarily the best teacher or motivator.
Would be kind of nice to have a new denomination which retains some of the beautiful old traditions while being less dependent on professionals and more scrupulous to what is written in the Bible.
Correction: the Paul quote on choosing bishops was a false memory. But still the evidence shows that bishops were the managers of local churches with many other people taking different roles. See the quotes on spiritual gifts and the Body of Christ. They were about division of labor.
Kokx is a schismatic midwit loser. The solution is to reject both traditionalism and Leoism as counterfeits. None of this has anything to do with Vatican II or the revised liturgy. They are both orthodox. The solution is that neither Bergoglio nor Leo XIV are popes. But they were the first antipopes since Vatican II. Not 58 sede but 2022 sede. And be Catholic, yes. Find a holy priest and parish that is not counterfeit. Kokx and Kwasniewski and One Peter Five and the rest are counterfeits.
Not sure what this has to do with my essay. I mentioned Kokx because of the running tally he keeps on the latest degenerative blasphemy to roll off Rome's assembly line. I can't keep track of them all myself. There are only so many hours in a day.
Also, the antipopes were not selected in a vacuum, or by a roll of the dice. The rot runs much deeper than just a pair of wicked old men. You say: "None of this has anything to do with Vatican II or the revised liturgy." "None" and "anything" are big, bold words. It is called a "road to Hell" for good reason.
Vatican II and the Novus Ordo have magisterial authority and therefore cannot possibly be evil in any way, and thus to say or imply so is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. Both traditionalism and progressivism are forms of blasphemy against all the Holy Spirit. Kokx is an arch blasphemer on his way to hell.
As a Protestant, I cannot help but scoff.
Careful. Your pride is showing.
Good point. I guess I just don't know why someone would be a Catholic. Honestly, I am not event exactly sure what a "Catholic" is. I am not trying to be demeaning as much as I am genuinely confused. Can you, as a Catholic, explain to me, a Protestant, what the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism is, from the Catholic perspective?
The heart of it, and why devout Catholics can’t leave for any denomination but Orthodoxy, is that they believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
They can’t partake of that Sacrament (and indeed no Protestant denomination to my knowledges claims to have it) in any Church that doesn’t have clergy ordained through apostolic succession - “a “genealogy” of holy orders tracing back to the “ordination” of the apostles by Christ. Without the power vested in the apostles, which they transferred to the next generation and next generation of leadership, an individual cannot be the conduit for the miracle that is transubstantiation, and the Sacrament of the Eucharist cannot exist.
Only Catholic and Orthodox Clergy have (and claim to have) apostolic succession and the power vested by Christ in the apostles to bring about the Sacrament of His real presence in the Eucharist.
For a Catholic, having partaken of the miracle of the Eucharist and felt Christ’s presence in it, all other worship is incomplete. So, Catholics have no where else to go for the Eucharist except validly ordained sedevacantists priests or Orthodox Churches with apostolic succession.
Which, to a devout Catholic, harkens back to Christ instituting the Eucharist. Telling his disciplines they must “gnaw” on his flesh. His followers being scandalized and falling away. Christ doubling down on his statement. And his remain apostles staying by his side because “To whom else can we go?”
For them there was no one else to go to. And for devout Catholics there is now where else to go to except Orthodoxy to experience the Sacrament of Christ’s real presence. They’re not fence sitters, they’re staying close to Christ through the real presence in the Eucharist despite the unfaithfulness of the Church hierarchy.
The Pope is the head of the bishops. He settles theological disputes that arise, guided by the holy spirit. This does not mean that he is necessarily a good and holy man (though we pray that he is). We believe that the holy spirit will prevent him from contradicting sacred doctrine (derived from Scripture and Tradition) in very specific, official, doctrine defining ("ex cathedra") statements. He can also use his authority to change the disciplines of the church (e.g. priestly celibacy) and other things (wording of prayers) but these changes may be good or bad.
Beyond that, he's a regular sinner like any of us. Catholics owe the pope allegiance in a similar way that you might traditionally owe your own father "allegiance." You owe him a certain amount of respect for his office ("your father") and you should obey his lawful commands. But that doesn't mean he's a saint or that he never makes mistakes, or that he's a divine being, or that you are "worshipping" him, or that you are putting him above your relationship with Christ.
And so, a Catholic Christian is someone who has an ordered relationship with the pope, and a non-Catholic Christian is someone who completely rejects the Pope. There are also "ultramontanists" who elevate the Pope beyond his deserved status; in practice this usually means they scold anyone who says the pope did anything wrong and/or imply that the pope is beyond all criticism. These people are deviating from Catholic teaching just as much as protestants.
This is basically my understanding of it as well. I would add that certain technologies and/or their driving forces have propelled both the “ultramotanists” and the modern popes to new heights of self-flattery and hubris. The Magic Mirrors on the Walls make inversion of vice and virtue much easier. But the path was always narrow.
The heart of being Catholic is living a Sacramental life.
We are saved by God’s grace, and respond with faith in the spiritual level and by practicing holiness on the physical level. The Sacraments are miracles instituted by Christ to help us grow in holiness, and are the reason you can describe someone as “being a practicing Catholic” but you don’t hear people say they are a “practicing Baptist”, for example.
Baptism, confirmation, reconciliation, Eucharist at a minimum. Marriage/holy orders as a vocation of called to it. And anointing of the sick (last rights) if you have access to a priest while dying.
Where the pope matters, is that these miracles can only be transmitted by validly ordained clergy, who have apostolic succession (ordain by someone who was ordained by someone who was ordained by someone…back to the apostles). The Pope is the leader of thy clergy and matters for Church governance and settling long term, very serious theological disputes.
But for the ordinary Catholic what matters is access to a validly ordained priest in order to have access to the Sacraments, to be able to practice holiness with the support of miracles instituted by Christ.
My understanding is that most Protestant denominations have only baptism/confirmation and marriage for sacraments. And they don’t claim to have reconciliation, the Eucharist, holy orders, or anointing of the sick.
So for a Catholic who draws close to Christ through reconciliation and sharing in His sacrifice through the Eucharist weekly or even daily, denominations that don’t and can’t offer those Sacraments (clergy lack apostolic succession) will be spiritually lacking for the Catholic individual. They would actually be moving father away from Christ by moving to a denomination that lacks those Sacraments, than they are by keeping access to those Sacraments by staying within the Church even though some or most of the validly ordained clergy are heretics. Heretics who were validly ordained can still offer the Sacraments.
I guess what I previously believed was that Catholics owed the Pope allegiance, whereas Protestants rejected the Pope's authority, only acknowledging the headship of Jesus Christ, not any earthly man as the ultimate spiritual leader. I have seen a lot of Catholics more or less reject this Pope even moreso than the last Pope. I am also mostly unfamiliar with the terms "Anti-Pope" and "Sedevacanist". I only know a little bit about the Avignon papacy.
I guess I don't know how a person can call himself a Catholic and reject the authority of the (apparent) Pope. Tho, there is probably more to the story than what I am currently aware of.
“The Pope” is an office, not the person. Just like “The President” is an office. A Pope could be elected unlawfully, leaving the seat vacant (the sedevactantist position) or could become a open heretic leaving the seat vacant in the same way that a person obtaining the office of the President through election fraud or committing treason after being lawfully elected would invalidating their holding of the office.
A Catholic can affirm the authority of the Pope as a position, but believe that the person currently holding the position did not obtain the position lawfully or has abdicated essential duties of the office (by committing Hersey for example) and therefore no longer holds the position lawfully
A few points for your consideration
1. We must remember never to put our trust in earthly princes, even in the princes of the church. While the pope cannot bind the faithful to error, he is still human, and therefore prone to sin.
2. Much of the accusations of the church are misdirects, or not fully accurate (for example, the settling of migrants in America - this is Catholic charities (read: NGOs that aren't church entities like a parish or order is, but more like a subcontractor. The dealings are far more and far less shadowy than made out))
3. The far worse thing than anything mention, is allowing churches and cathedrals to be tourist sites, rather than places of worship.