Can someone please explain to me what PRACTICAL changes in my life I have to make to become a sedevacantist?  If I decide to become one tomorrow, what would change?  I'm already a trad, I don't go the novus ordo, or the indult.  Don't bother mentioning the 'una cuм' issue; i'll never go along with that.  What else do I have to do to avoid damnation?  I honestly don't know.

The practical change is in always obeying our conscience. Nothing could be more necessary. God demands that of us, and so He demands that all our actions conform with our beliefs. 

Now, the following two things must be believed. After you believe them, you actions must conform to what you believe:

"If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema."    (Council of Trent. Sess. 22, canon 7)

"the liturgy of the Ruthenians can be no other than that which was either instituted by the holy fathers of the Church or ratified by the canons of synods or introduced by legitimate use, always with the express or tacit approval of the Apostolic See."  (Omnem Sollicitudinem, 1874)

Two choices stem from these:

EITHER  1)  The Novus Ordo Mass is and has been only good and holy.

OR           2)  The Novus Ordo Mass is not legitimate because the popes who have approved were not true popes.

I have many friends and family in the SSPX, and in my experience nearly all of them cannot defend their position - they stay where they are primarily out of convenience. They primarily don't want to risk upsetting/losing family and friends, having to change parishes, change jobs, sell their homes etc by switching to a sedevacantist chapel.
 

Perhaps that could be true for some, but I don't see how becoming sedevacantist would necessitate to switch chapels (unless you hold to absurd dogmatic non-una cuм position) - Resistance and SSPX priests also offer valid sacraments and Catholic teaching. In our SSPX chapel we have sedevacantists who are perfectly happy to attend the Mass and actively support the parish even though they disagree with the SSPX on the status of V2 claimants. There are also perfectly good and rational reasons for not embracing sedevacantist position, such as the problem of Apostolic succession and Ecclesia-vacantism which is a logical conclusion of sedevacantism (even if sedes deny that).


I agree with Matthew that the current crisis is a mystery and no theologian ever proposed a satisfying explanation for what is going on today. Both R&R and sedevacantist positions have their weaknesses, they both deny indefectibility of the Church, although in different ways (R&R through asserting that an Ecuмenical Council can teach grave error to the Universal Church, sedevacantists through asserting that all episcopal sees are vacant, which means Ecclesia-vacantism and the end of Apostolic succession).

However, it is not quite true that the Church never taught anything relevant to the current crisis. The Church most certainly teaches that a formal heretic loses membership in the Church and is outside the Church. Thus, if V2 claimants to the Papacy are formal heretics, they cannot be Popes, unless you want to argue that one can be outside the Church and remain Pope.

Perhaps that could be true for some, but I don't see how becoming sedevacantist would necessitate to switch chapels (unless you hold to absurd dogmatic non-una cuм position) - Resistance and SSPX priests also offer valid sacraments and Catholic teaching. In our SSPX chapel we have sedevacantists who are perfectly happy to attend the Mass and actively support the parish even though they disagree with the SSPX on the status of V2 claimants. There are also perfectly good and rational reasons for not embracing sedevacantist position, such as the problem of Apostolic succession and Ecclesia-vacantism which is a logical conclusion of sedevacantism (even if sedes deny that).


I agree with Matthew that the current crisis is a mystery and no theologian ever proposed a satisfying explanation for what is going on today. Both R&R and sedevacantist positions have their weaknesses, they both deny indefectibility of the Church, although in different ways (R&R through asserting that an Ecuмenical Council can teach grave error to the Universal Church, sedevacantists through asserting that all episcopal sees are vacant, which means Ecclesia-vacantism and the end of Apostolic succession).

However, it is not quite true that the Church never taught anything relevant to the current crisis. The Church most certainly teaches that a formal heretic loses membership in the Church and is outside the Church. Thus, if V2 claimants to the Papacy are formal heretics, they cannot be Popes, unless you want to argue that one can be outside the Church and remain Pope.

Holy smokes, where do I even begin responding to this post? Reasons to switch chapels if someone becomes a sedevacantist? How many answers do you want?
 
First, the SSPX accepts Novus ordo priests into their ranks without conditional ordination. The new rite of ordination is doubtful at best, so these "priests" are providing doubtful sacraments, and they are scattered all throughout the SSPX. I would switch for this reason ALONE. Second, the SSPX tells their congregations to disregard the man they think is the Pope, which is schismatic by definition. Another reason to switch. Third, the SSPX teaches General Councils (always infallible) can teach error. I could go on.
 
You admit the Church teaches a heretical Pope loses membership in the Church, then in the same post you say the current crisis is a mystery with no satisfying explanation. Major contradiction. If you know the Church has taught this, why are you resisting the Church? Francis has taught even against the Natural Law which no one can claim ignorance of, so this can only be labeled formal heresy. This means the teaching of the Church takes effect; Francis has lost membership.

You also say both R&R and sedevacantist positions "have their weaknesses". ONE and only ONE position has to be true, which leaves any others false. 2+2=4 is true, and all other answers are false, but no one in their right mind would say, "2+2=4 has its weaknesses" - it's either true or it's not. If R&R is true, sedevacantism is false, and vice versa.

Catholic imprimatured books have categorically taught this as a simple truth.

So, if you reject this, is it because you don't consider it "official" teaching?

Behold Nadoism.  Nado considers anything with any official approval from the Church to be infallible for all intents and purposes.

Nado fails to realize that the Church can approve works with differing opinions on various subjects.

NO CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN HAS EVER TAUGHT NADOISM.

Some theologians actually hold that a manifestly heretical pope would remain Pope.  Others, like John of St. Thomas, believe in the requirement for a material (ministerial deposition).  That's the opinion held by Father Chazal, and the one which I find the most convincing.

But, yes, they take the St. Robert syllogism and pretend it's infallible.

Heretic is not Catholic.
Non Catholic cannot be pope.
Heretic cannot be pope.
[then add]
Francis is heretic.
Francis cannot be pope.

EACH ONE of these logical steps can be disputed and/or distinguished.

Yikes, this post is just oooozing with trad-cuмenism!
 

You act as if it's a given that "trad-cuмenism" is a bad thing.

Are you willing to first define "trad-cuмenism", and then explain to us why "trad-cuмenism" is as bad as the false ecuмenism of the Conciliar Church?

You act as if it's a given that "trad-cuмenism" is a bad thing.

Are you willing to first define "trad-cuмenism", and then explain to us why "trad-cuмenism" is as bad as the false ecuмenism of the Conciliar Church?

Are you willing to read and respond to what I last wrote you in this thread?

Are you willing to read and respond to what I last wrote you in this thread?

I don't think I'd respond to you, even if I wanted to respond to everyone. You're too stubborn, you think you're right (and everyone else is wrong), and plus you've re-joined CI after being banned as "Nado". I'm surprised you're still here.
Don't push your luck.