Is it easier for converts to accept the hard reality of sedevacantism? It seems so to me.

Unlike cradle Catholics, we’re unburdened by any sentimental attachment to those postconciliar wretches who—however heretical and/or apostate—most cradle Catholics nevertheless view as popes. For example, we didn’t grow up seeing their vile faces in the vestibule and thus cultivating any sense of loyalty to these scuмbags. (By the way, vastly underrated is the damage done by reverently hanging the pictures of these swine in vestibules, especially in vestibules where practical sedevacantism is embraced while vocally preaching against sedevacantism; not only does it create at least a trace of sentimental attachment to these pigs, but it also spawns a kind of painful schizophrenia.) 

It is, in part, precisely because I love the papacy that I’ve embraced sedevacantism. The postconciliar pigs cannot possibly be the true occupants of this most exalted of all offices. True fathers do not feed their children stones rather than bread. We’ve been assured of that. And of course, by their fruits ye shall know them. We’ve also been assured of that. 

The love of cradle Catholics for the papacy seems to have been fatally eroded by the demonic examples of the postconciliar “popes.” (Love diminished also by their selective obedience). Hence they believe that the office can be held even by diabolical degenerates spewing heresy every day. Hence it’s hard for them to accept the hard reality of sedevacantism. 

Anyway, what do you think? Is it easier for converts to accept the hard reality of sedevacantism? 

I'm also a convert and do not accept sedevacantism.

But I find that I have less emotional reaction to the position then a lot of both diocesan and R&R types.

Is it easier for converts to accept the hard reality of sedevacantism? It seems so to me.

Unlike cradle Catholics, we’re unburdened by any sentimental attachment to those postconciliar wretches who—however heretical and/or apostate—most cradle Catholics nevertheless view as popes. For example, we didn’t grow up seeing their vile faces in the vestibule and thus cultivating any sense of loyalty to these scuмbags. (By the way, vastly underrated is the damage done by reverently hanging the pictures of these swine in vestibules, especially in vestibules where practical sedevacantism is embraced while vocally preaching against sedevacantism; not only does it create at least a trace of sentimental attachment to these pigs, but it also spawns a kind of painful schizophrenia.)

It is, in part, precisely because I love the papacy that I’ve embraced sedevacantism. The postconciliar pigs cannot possibly be the true occupants of this most exalted of all offices. True fathers do not feed their children stones rather than bread. We’ve been assured of that. And of course, by their fruits ye shall know them. We’ve also been assured of that.

The love of cradle Catholics for the papacy seems to have been fatally eroded by the demonic examples of the postconciliar “popes.” (Love diminished also by their selective obedience). Hence they believe that the office can be held even by diabolical degenerates spewing heresy every day. Hence it’s hard for them to accept the hard reality of sedevacantism.

Anyway, what do you think? Is it easier for converts to accept the hard reality of sedevacantism?

In short...  Yes!  Many people whom I have known to become full traditional Catholics from Atheism or Protestantism often find sedevacantism the best way to explain the crisis in the Church.  
That being said...  With a shortage of sede priests many people who hold the sede position have no choice but to go to a different option or not at all.
I remember after King Kigeli's requiem Mass that there was a man who had come to it and said he was the only traditional Catholic left living in Rwanda!  How blessed most of us are to have any Mass at all!  Imagine being the only one in your whole country...  😣
How long have you been a traditional Catholic?  What were you before?  🙃
I grew up novus ordo/Byzantine.  Being a full traditional Catholic was in the eyes of my family like leaving the church.  😩
I do remember though that the "Can a pope be a heretic?" was still the lynchpin for me.

I'm a cradle NO and I lean towards sedevacantism(I see a few seemingly irreconcilable problems with it, but I see those with every position), but from my biased perspective I think any assertion of "converts know better" is a risky one. A convert will inherently have a worse sensus Catholicus than a cradle Catholic, just as I as someone raised in the NO almost certainly has a worse one than a born-and-raised Trad. I think it's a dangerous game for converts to suggest they know better because they are converts. It's like saying naturalised Americans understand America better than people born and raised there--a ridiculous proposition. While a naturalised citizen might have studied a lot of details for their citizenship test that a born American never did, the born American will still have a far greater sense of what it is to be American than the immigrant. Same certainly applies for the vast majority of cases of cradle Trad vs convertee Trad.

I wanted to convert to Catholicism but I could not reconcile Vatican II at all and started researching sedevacantism. It was the only way things could possibly make sense, Vatican II is undoubtedly turning souls away from even looking into Catholicism. I think this is the design of that "council". The more you delve into Church history the more you feel alienated, you have to accept that history starts in the 60s if you go NO. 

…

Was trying to add the following to my original post:

“Mommy, why is there a picture of that horrible man here in the vestibule? You, Daddy, and Father have called him a total Modernist and thus the embodiment of all heresies!”

I lean sede, but I am not dogmatic about it.

Despite what some will tell you, there's no dogmatic precedent for it, same with the "non una cuм" issue. It's all theological opinion at this point until a true Pope defines it.

Is it easier for converts to accept the hard reality of sedevacantism? It seems so to me.

Not having to submit to a pope can sometimes appeal to a Protestant, but that may lead to Roman Protestantism.

Not saying it's common but I've seen it happen.