Any former sedevacantists, conclavists or SSPX supporters?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CroatCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CroatCatholic

Guest
What’s your story in short? Which of the three were you, which society/organization did you belong to? Just some basic info. Just curious.
Thanks.
 
I am not, having never been one, and have found the sedes logical fallacies condescending towards those of us that actually take an interest in history. However, there are are a few former ones here, thank you for asking.
 
Dear Bataar, thanks for your reply.
I truly do not want any debate to start here, I am just asking to hear some stories/experiences of former sedevacantist, etc…
God bless, and may He guide you back into His Church.
 
I used to be a sedevacantist when I was an impressionable teenager and found some videos posted by the MHFM (I highly reccomend NOT watching ANY of their videos).
The overall logic of the thing sorta compelled me, even though there were multiple assertions that were kinda iffy.
The overall logic being that (it has been a while so this may not be totally accurate):
  1. A heretic cannot be pope
  2. The popes since (insert date) were heretics
  3. Ergo, there hasn’t been a pope since (insert date)
However, this group denied baptism of desire, which I found was supported long before VII in the Council of Trent (and since that time have learned its been a concept for quite a while).
Then I started to think about the videos I had seen. I remembered thinking, “hmm, this is out of context” as they read something in among the worst light you could, and how they tried to establish that a pope was a heretic because he called Buddhism a beautiful religion (I mean, of course it is in error, but some parts of it are beautiful).

The simple fact of the matter is that #1 is in contention: we aren’t sure. There’s been theological speculation on both sides of the aisle, but history shows that when a pope is suspected of error, they would attempt to try him (think Boniface VIII, of whom an attempt was tried even posthumously): he didn’t automatically just stop being the pope.
Secondly, #2 is not at all proved or shown.

Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council, like Trent. To separate oneself from the Church or pit yourself against it is ridiculous. Pray very hard for those still in error.

So-called “traditionalists” who deny the proper authority that God has defended and defends to this day are a stepping stone to outright schism, such as sedevacantism. In this @Bataar is right as to the escalation of how things go.

But much has been typed or written about these poor souls who buy into a schismatic mentality while thinking they are upholding doctrine. Truly, it would seem the devil cares more about getting you than how he does it. Many defenses of the Council and of the popes have been made, though again and again negative things have been written against them (as though there are people who like reading about such). I highly reccomend reading such before deciding to go off the deep end of schism. And, of course, one should pray very much OPEN TO TRUTH.

I look forward to the day when such people are but a note in a history book, and all those who want to follow the Catholic Church do.
 
Last edited:
I began following and buying into the MHFM videos and websites and such. I initially suspected them of using traditionalism, which is normally a good thing, and using it to bring people to hell. Then as I watched they used subjects people weren’t informed about to begin with, such as Extra Ecclesium Nulla Salus, or Baptism of Desire, and used bad interpretations to prey on Catholics. They are cultish and have lying and such down to a science. Do not watch their videos, and do not argue with their supporters unless you have someone knowledgeable about the subjects with you.
 
I once regularly attended an SSPX chapel, and I am still sympathetic to them and do not have any real problem with them. So they have issues with certain aspects of Vatican II? If a priest has issues with certain other teachings of the Church (Humanae vitae, communion for divorced and “remarried”, etc.), does anyone say boo to them about it? Do they lose their faculties to preach or hear confessions? To this day, I do not hesitate to attend an SSPX chapel if the occasion calls for it, but I haven’t been to one in over 15 years. No reason to go. I do seek out and prefer diocesan TLMs whenever possible.

Several years ago, I mulled over the idea of sedevacantism, but in the end, I determined that this was not my call to make, and even if I were wrong — please note well that I accept Francis as my pope — Our Lord would not hold it to my charge. We are now 62 years out from the end of the reign of Pius XII. That’s an awfully long time to do without a pope. Would that not mean that the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Church?
 
I really don’t think this is going to go well…
People just need to be civil. I can discuss my reasons calmly, politely and respectfully. If everyone does that, we should be able to have a discussion where there are different points of view.
 
does anyone say boo to them about it? Do they lose their faculties to preach or hear confessions?
I think Pope Francis gave them the faculties to hear confessions during the Jubilee year of mercy. Dunno if that was ever revoked.
But the big issue was the whole ordaining men as bishops without the pope’s approval thing. But they can go very much too far in what they say, like against the Mass promulgated by St Pope Paul VI.
 
I am curious as to know your answer to this question:

•Where are the bishops with ordinary jurisdiction?

I am asking this because according to pre-Vatican II theology, the Church must always have living bishops who have ordinary jurisdiction without interregnum in order to continue possessing the mark of Apostolicity. And pope Pius XII had already declared that the ordinary jurisdiction of bishops come directly from the Roman Pontiff.

So I am curious as to how you would answer this because most sedevacantists online end up denying that there are living bishops today with ordinary jurisdiction. And this denial, frankly, is a post-Vatican II rationalization and, at worst, plausibly heretical in pre-Vatican II standards.

Yes, pre-Vatican II theologians entertained the possibility that the pope might lose his office because of heresy, but they never entertained the notion that all the bishops with ordinary jurisdiction would become heretics at the same time because this idea is detrimental to one of the four marks of the Church: apostolicity.
 
Last edited:
A personal friend of mine who subscribes to the sedevacantist thesis says that, provided all the other conditions are satisfied, the episcopal appointments of a widely-recognized but invalid Pope would be covered by supplied jurisdiction.

I see problems with this answer, but it’s an answer nonetheless.
 
I think Pope Francis gave them the faculties to hear confessions during the Jubilee year of mercy. Dunno if that was ever revoked.
The permission was extended indefinitely by Pope Francis.
 
I used to be a sedevacantist when I was an impressionable teenager and found some videos posted by the MHFM (I highly reccomend NOT watching ANY of their videos).
Oof I kinda started watching them lately. Well I admit I watched some anti-Vatican2 ones but I mostly watched for debate with Calvinists and “Bible proves Papacy” etc. They honestly make so much sense in everything it’s frightening but I do think sedevacantist position would be inconvenient for the Church and God would not allow it. I did not see them talk about any of other things you mentioned such as baptism of desire as of now- and I don’t intend to.

I do think recent Popes did this or that thing weirdly or sometimes even seems like wrongly but it is not my call whether they are or aren’t Popes. Maybe I would have same issues with fully valid Popes in middle ages if I lived back then. And then again there’s no sedevacantist Church near me at all so if God really wanted me to be sedevacantist, I would probably actually have an option for that.

And then the fact they deny validity of Novus Ordo and all sacraments in OF… I mean denying licidity is one thing (not that I would agree with it), but denying validity of OF while accepting validity of Orthodox sacraments is hypocritical.
 
Arians made sense for some people, and deceived them.
Nestorians made sense for some people, and deceived them.
Protestants made sense for some people, and deceived them.
Lollards and Hussites made sense for some people, and deceived them.
Old Catholics made sense for some people, and deceived them.
The point is, some can have good arguments, but that doesn’t mean they are right. If their arguments were weak, do you think people would have became Arians, Protestants, Old Catholics, Nestorians, etc… But knowledge, wisdom and the power of God was required to overcome their deception. Isn’t this the same with sedevacantism?
So many sects, cults, organizations, and so many groups claiming the fulness of truth, amd that they are the remnant throughout history and now, yet, the Church was never destroyed. The Church has been attacked, and is attacked, outside, but also from the inside by misleading, bad-intentioned or deceived people.
Let us trust in God and in His Church, let us have faith, and let us repent and pray, for the Judgement will come one day.
God be with us all, let us not leave the flock, but let us stay faithful, even though the storm and wind may exhaust us exceedingly.
 
Last edited:
Stop! Yes, they have some good videos, but that can lead you to watching some of their VERY, VERY BAD ones. AVOID ALTOGETHER!! The devil can be very subtle.
Thank you. I suppose I will. I was mostly interested in their anti-Protestant debates (though I did watch some others too) but even in those videos, some jabs at Vatican II and current Church are present. I was kinda shaken by some of their anti-Vatican videos so when you said they are full of misinformation presented out of context, I was very glad to hear that is the case- and that is enough for me. Thank you for that.
The point is, some can have good arguments, but that doesn’t mean they are right. If their arguments were weak, do you think people would have became Arians, Protestants, Old Catholics, Nestorians, etc… But knowledge, wisdom and the power of God was required to overcome their deception. Isn’t this the same with sedevacantism?
So many sects, cults, organizations, and so many groups claiming the fulness of truth, amd that they are the remnant throughout history and now, yet, the Church was never destroyed. The Church has been attacked, and is attacked, outside, but also from the inside by misleading, bad-intentioned or deceived people.
Thank you. I really needed to hear (see? read?) this.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top