I became sedevacantist in the year 1969.

 After the Canon of the mass was changed, I exited the modern church.  I found a valid priest to say mass for my family.  I had to drive 1 1/2 hrs one way to mass, which was every three months.
The term sedevacantist was coined much later.  
The term was introduced to  designate Catholics that did not believe that the imposters in Rome were true popes.
When the SSPX was formed in the early 70's those who  were traditional and did not believe the Church had a pope had to be distinuished from  the "recognize and resist" group which became known as the SSPX.

This question is for the Sedes here. At what point did you come to accept the Sedevacantist position? Was it one event that convinced you, or was it a process? What were the key points that lead you to this position? What were the most convincing arguments?

Did you come from the Novus Ordo to the Society and then eventually came to Sedevacantism? Or did you convert directly from Protestantism or agnosticism? Or did you come to this position directly from the NO?

Thanks!

Malleus: I was going to the Novus Ordo Church when I decided to get Married no my wife , also a Novus Ordo in 1978.  One of the Guys I asked to be a Bridgroom didnt want to be one because he told me flat out - that Church isnt Catholic. And he told me why.  That was my first exposure to Traditionalism. Two years later in 1980 , another Friend I worked with invited me to hear a lecture by a Catholic Priest named Father Dennis Chicoine of CMRI. It was shortly thereafter I began going again to the Latin Mass.  Since CMRI was always sedevacantist , I never felt obligated to explore other Traditional Groups - but as Laity , I do not feel obligated to state that I am a Sedevacantist. I merely attend a Chapel that is run by Sedevacantist Priests who have taken that theological Stance in order to preserve Catholic Orthodoxy. I likewise believe that SSPX has taken their stance in order to Preserve Catholic Orthodoxy.   I think too much is made by Laity of feeling the need to declare the merits of one over the other or vice versa.   I consider myself Catholic - I consider all of You Catholic (until you PROVE conclusively otherwise) and feel that the Battle against Modernism requires a Spiritual Approach - rather than a legalistic approach if we hope to overcome this heresy in our lifetimes.  

Pax  

We are cradle catholics of 1953.  We were traditional in 1996.  We did not understand about sede-v until 2006.  It was ready material and the understanding of Papal Infallibility of Vatican I that made it clear.  First: what does it take for a cardinal to be nominated?  He must be Catholic in outward signs, not heretical. (by their fruits you will know them, manifest).  A Pope must be catholic, before he can be a pope.  In the definition of Papal infallibility it explains about heresy.

When I left the novus ordo religion for tradition, I never heard of the word "sedevacantist", I just felt a strong feeling that I was going home to where I belonged.  It was years later, after the computer became more popular that the word was used in my world, and I had to look it up just to see what it meant.  I left the novus ordo to go back to being a Roman Catholic, the Faith I hope to die united too, with God's grace.  

Quote from: stevusmagnus

This question is for the Sedes here. At what point did you come to accept the Sedevacantist position? Was it one event that convinced you, or was it a process? What were the key points that lead you to this position? What were the most convincing arguments?

Did you come from the Novus Ordo to the Society and then eventually came to Sedevacantism? Or did you convert directly from Protestantism or agnosticism? Or did you come to this position directly from the NO?

Thanks!

Malleus: I was going to the Novus Ordo Church when I decided to get Married no my wife , also a Novus Ordo in 1978.  One of the Guys I asked to be a Bridgroom didnt want to be one because he told me flat out - that Church isnt Catholic. And he told me why.  That was my first exposure to Traditionalism. Two years later in 1980 , another Friend I worked with invited me to hear a lecture by a Catholic Priest named Father Dennis Chicoine of CMRI. It was shortly thereafter I began going again to the Latin Mass.  Since CMRI was always sedevacantist , I never felt obligated to explore other Traditional Groups - but as Laity , I do not feel obligated to state that I am a Sedevacantist. I merely attend a Chapel that is run by Sedevacantist Priests who have taken that theological Stance in order to preserve Catholic Orthodoxy. I likewise believe that SSPX has taken their stance in order to Preserve Catholic Orthodoxy.   I think too much is made by Laity of feeling the need to declare the merits of one over the other or vice versa.   I consider myself Catholic - I consider all of You Catholic (until you PROVE conclusively otherwise) and feel that the Battle against Modernism requires a Spiritual Approach - rather than a legalistic approach if we hope to overcome this heresy in our lifetimes.  

Pax  

I understand the reasoning behind not wanting to think the SV issue is not important.  "Can't we all just get along".  But since it is Divine Law that a Public Heretic is not valid matter for the Papacy and this fact was solemnly defined by Paul IV it is really incuмbent upon all [with the wherewithal to do so] to come to a conclusion on the issue.  

The reason for this is because if a Pope can really impose incentives to impiety on the Church like the new Mass and a heretical council and heretical canon law and invalid sacraments then there really is no reason to have a Pope.  What purpose would he serve?

To ignore the issue while trying to stay Catholics means it is a matter of indifference whether or not we submit to the Pope as all Catholics must:

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (UNAM SANCTAM, Pope Boniface VIII)

In making an obvious distinction, I was accused, on another thread, of having it both ways when I granted that an individual would not have to obey an evil command from the Pope, while all are bound to submit to what he binds on the Church such as a Mass, Council, Canon Law, Sacraments, Catechism, Rosary, Stations of the Cross, watered down Exorcism Rite and so on.

I hope this distinction is obvious to the other readers.

The other choice [other than the SV conclusion] for the good willed Catholic is to have a schismatic attitude by NOT being subject to [whom they mistakenly believe to be] the Roman Pontiff and this is a mortal sin for them if they truly believe Ratzinger is the Pope and they are aware that in order to be Catholic and saved you MUST submit to all he binds on the Church [telling an individual to stomp on the crucifix is not something he is binding on the Church].  Knowing this and closing your eyes to it because it takes you out of your comfort zone is reprehensible.  The only hope for the SSPX types is that they are truly not aware that we must submit to what the Pope binds on the Church or that they truly do not think the new "mass", council, sacraments, catechism, encyclicals are binding in nature as the pre-vatican 2 theologians clearly teach.

Those who insist that he is Pope disobey he who they believe to be the supreme authority of the Church and this is counter to being a Catholic according to Pope Boniface VIII and all who know and accept Church teaching on this issue.

The Sedevacantists who realize that a non-Catholic is not valid matter for the papacy and that Ratzinger is a non-Catholic, due to heresy [which the orthodox theologians teach put you outside the Church] disobey no-one.

The choice again is having a schismatic attitude toward the "Pope" or disobeying no one and being loyal to the authentic magisterium.  There is no such thing as magisterium [pre-conciliar] against magisterium [conciliar].  It is a subject that is anything but a matter of indifference.

Those who do not have the wherewithal to come to a decision on this point certainly are not obliged to do so.  But if you can study the theology manuals and all that has been presented by SVs from the official teachings of the Church, it would seem that it would be incuмbent on one of good will, one way or the other to come to a conclusion on the subject and then to act accordingly.

To acknowledge someone as the Supreme Head and to act as if he is not teaches our children that it is okay to not submit to the Pope, to disobey and ignore him when that is not Catholic teaching.  People get faulted for obedience now-a-days.  This should not be the case.

Some who hold the SV position, quite firmly I might add, claim they do not like how the position is presented (uncharitable) yet to not make the effort to present it themselves.  I would suggest these people give examples of an uncharitable presentation of SV and show this is the norm of how it is presented and then show us the charitable way of presenting the Divine Law, and infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium on the subject.  

Fr Denis Chicone lectured around the country in the 70's and part of the 80's.  Several other CMRI priests did the same.   His topic was the Message of Fatima and the changes in the Church.  
The reactions were:

Most people were disturbed about the changes, and  when they heard that the pope (Paul V1 at the time) was an imposter, they went back to their parish priest with their concerns.  He told them that the opinions of Father Denis were false, and that he was a schizmatic.  They believed the parish priest and continued to go to the Novus Ordo

The second group were small in number.  They believed, and found the nearest SSPX where they could have their pope and the Latin mass too.  SSPX got a lot of members around the country from this group.

The third group believed and came to mass at the hotel where the lecture was given.  They were very few.  These people becaue the core of the CMRI sedes.  

The sedes joined other groups like the SSPV who were formed later by the nine priests leaving the SSPX.  They also went to mass said by independent priests around the country.  They did this because that believed the chair was vacant, and went to these other groups because they had mass in their area.
The groups have always had a exchange of members throughout the years.

Some CMRI members joined the SSPX
SSPX members joined the CMRI
SSPV members went to the CMRI
CMRI members went to the SSPV and to Bishop Dolan.

I've never heard of the CMRI before. I went to their website and found they have a small chapel where Mass is said once a month, in Santa Fe, which is much closer than the closest SSPX chapel I was able to find. And since it's once a month, I might be able to afford the drive! Thanks!

Quote

Were I a Cleric , I would agree with you. Am I to presume to know more as Laity than Archbishop Lefebvre?  This , I think , is where  your theory fails.  As Laity  ,we are to do as the Church intends.  If we are to all become rigorists , then in my view that leads to home aloners.  Wouldnt the reception of Valid Catholic Sacraments be better than no sacraments?  Ultimately , I have made the Conscience decision to Move my entire Family from the West Coast to Omaha Nebraska so as to be able to attend Daily Mass at a CMRI Church.    You may very well speak about the benefits of the Theological Position of Sedevacantism to me and you will be preaching to the choir. However , I refuse to be exclusionary.  Likewise I refuse to adopt a rignorist mentality in relation to those who do not believe as I believe.  I believe ultimately that Divine Law trumps Canon Law and that sooner or Later the ambiguities between the various groups will become better defined - either through the Spiritual Growth of those individuals with clouded views - or perhaps with added clarity as a result of persecutions. Or , dare I say , even an end to the Heresies themselves .  Unity is important in the Church Militant - agreed - but not moreso than Unity with the Church Triumphant and Church Suffering by the Church Militant.  This we must all strive for through Prayer (Holy Rosary) and the Mass and Living our Holy Catholic faith.  

Do all the clergy who recognize the SV position know more than what Lefebvre publically stated apart from his personal thoughts?  Do the laity who agree, by that very fact, need to be classified as "knowing more than Lefebvre"?

Your response is beside the point.  What matters is the truth.  Some know it and are afraid to acknowledge it publically.  That is what is difficult in written communications sometimes.  You have taken what I have written and turned it into a "theory" that "fails" because lay people cannot know more than Lefebvre which has nothing to do with what I wrote.  

My point is people believe what they want to believe, facts be damned, and that those who willfully ignore truth for convenience or any other reason will be held accountable as we all are held accountable for all our actions or non-actions.  

I grant that some may not have the wherewithal to seek and accept truth.  Now if I maintained that all must know the truth even if they can't know it your response would have merit.  "Rigorist" or "exclusionary" do not fit into what I wrote.  It is "Truth".  The willfully blind will answer and stating such a fact is neither rigorist or exclusionary but Catholic.  Admittedly one could call Christ rigorist or exclusionary for not allowing all into Heaven but it is because He is the Truth that He does so.  Call it what you will but the truth stands.  

I say this respectfully to one who has seen the light but who does not want to state it publically as being undeniable because "that would mean we know more than Lefebvre" and once we cross that line we cannot insist we are correct.

I speak of no undue burden but only claim that those who can without, interfering with their state in life, should and are obliged to seek and accept truth (otherwise the will be held accountable for their willful ignorance).  The time spent on this blog could be used for that purpose.  

Do you see the incredible illogic of that reasoning?  If you are clergy "okay" but if laity "no".  Truth stands no matter who accepts it publically or not.  If it is right it is right even if no one is doing it and if it is wrong it is wrong even if everyone is doing it.  The same is true with beliefs.

Malleus: When you say "My point is people believe what they want to believe, facts be damned" does that not presuppose that a Human will has purposely  defied GOD and is thus culpable for that infidelity? Tell me , how is it you know this to be true for everyone you meet who do not believe exactly as you do?  I say that there are those who have retained the Faith whether in Silence or on Public Display and that none of us can pretend to know that fidelity. Therefore - since we all stand for TRUTH - we must in every action likewise show TRUTH in accepting every tenet of our Faith including Charity.   Perhaps you need to revisit Matthew 6 : 1 - 8 and read the Haydock Exegesis.

Pax