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.