Any former sedevacantists, conclavists or SSPX supporters?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CroatCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mrchatsworth said:
I’m an sspx supporter in that I am sympathetic to the order’s position. I attend sporadically when I wish to go to a TLM. I almost exclusively confess to a sspx priest as he is the best confessor I’ve ever had.
Click to expand...
SSPX confessors are pretty darned good. They take the time with you that you need, and they cut right to the core.

I will characterize seeking out an SSPX confessor the way Anglicans refer to confession in general – “all may, none must, some should”.
 
Authors of video about why is Palamism heresy, and what CroatCatholic described.
 
Palamism? Did not realize how bad my theological knowledge was. Oh well.
 
tafan2 said:
Palamism? Did not realize how bad my theological knowledge was. Oh well.
Click to expand...
I actually thought this is different thread… my bad… yeah they have video on Palamism but nevermind that 😃
 
Topic is still open for sharing experiences. Don’t hesitate. 😁
 
For the former sedevacantists, did you come to the conclusion that the post conciliar popes are not heretics or did you conclude that they are heretics, yet still retain the papacy?
 
I was a sedevacantist for nearly 20 years, long story short…

Two primary reasons I left it,
  1. 60 years of no Pope means the Church also no longer has legitimate bishops or valid cardinals.
This Means the Catholic Church no longer has a hierarchy, no longer has the atribute of authority, visability, or formal apostalic succession (juristiction)

This is impossible, because these qualities are perminant to the Church.

Reason 2, I realised after a few years of study, that a Catholic is perfectly free to believe and practice the faith exactly the same before the councle.

The various answers to these dilemmas that are given by the different sedevacantist groups did NOT hold up after a closer examination of them, so I no longer hold the position as I could see no way to do so without rejecting the doctrine of the Church and its attributes.
 
Last edited:
Mac said:
I realised after a few years of study, that a Catholic is perfectly free to believe and practice the faith exactly the same before the council.
Click to expand...
That’s what I do.

A couple of decades ago, I drove on the rumble strips of SV, but finally decided “not to go there”. Francis is my pope, even if I would have chosen someone else.
 
By “them” do you mean the SSPX? If so that is absolutely not true. They do the full seven years of rigorous training.

Perhaps your friend was thinking of a requirement for already ordained priests desiring to join the SSPX? If so I believe this is discussed case-by-case
 
Oh. I think I know who you mean. My old history master used to say “if we want to hold views that are unpopular, we have to work slightly harder than that to be right”
 
I am a former sedevecantist. At first, my family and I attended independent churches, and currently the CMRI.
A couple of months ago, I have made the change, and I am planning on leaving the CMRI. This change was not easy by any means. I struggled within myself, but then I started seeing.

One of the things which convinced me was that the Catholic Church can never fail. Ever. Jesus promised that. So, for sedes to say that the Church is not there anymore, that it “morphed” into a modernist, whatever-church is simply not true, because it denies the indefectibility of the Church, which teaches that the Church in Rome will always be there until the end of time. The Church is visible. We are taught in the catechism that the Church has to have a visible leader, hierarchy, comprising of bishops, priests, etc…so for the sedes to say that they’re gone and that we’re reduced to a couple of random chapels scattered across the world is bizarre. Sedes deny the visibility of the Church, which is a key Catholic teaching.
Sedes communities everywhere are scattered and divided. They do not like each other. There is so much fighting and division, and breaking off into different groups (the independent church I used to attend used to be with the CMRI before they left and started bashing the CMRI–in fact, they warned us not to go there.)

This is just the tip of the iceberg of why I left sedevecantism, but it was one of the main reasons why I left
The Church has survived Arianism and Protestantism., She will survive Modernism.

I am happy where I am now. I thank God and Mary for this miracle. Right now, I stick with Holy Mother Church and fight by her side, not abandon her in her most urgent need.

The gates of hell will never, ever prevail against the Church.
God bless you all!
 
I am so much at peace to know that I am in communion with the Catholic Church, and that I, too, get to experience the fullness of Catholicism (nicely-put by the way) in a way that I never knew growing up sede. If I get married and have children in the future, my children will be much luckier than I was LOL
 
For those of you who are former Sedevacantists:

Praise the Lord that you’ve come back to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

I know I would be overjoyed if I were in your position.
 
Hey, Bataar.

I presume that most believe the first conclusion, however, I believe that there are also ones who believe second conclusion. You can always PM the person. 😁

Peace!
 
Last edited:
When I was a sedevacantist I herd the same point you made, (about us being protestants)

At the time I thought that was ridiculous.

But in hind site, especially after examining the various sedevacantist arguments. I found a very similar mentality to the protestant menltality in the way they argue against the Church.

Protestants proof text the bible looking for ways to prove their pre concieved notion that Catholisism is false. At they same time they IGNORE legitimate distinctions and clarifications, and completely gloss over , or explain away all biblical statements that completely contradict their position.

After examining sedevacantism , I found the same tactic being used, exept instead of using the bible to “proof text” they use quotes from Church documents or saints of the past , selectively picking quotes , pulling them out of context and using them to attack what they call the V2 Church.

At the same time ignoring everything else that contradtcts their position .

In the end it’s the same error of privet judgment.

Having said that, I do believe most sedevacantists really just want to be good Catholics, unfortunately they have allowed them selfs to be scandalised by the curuption and bad behavior they see in the mainstream Church, and therefore have fallien victim to alot of misinformation that apeals to their indignation .

I think one of the things that could be helpful is to point out the legitimate distinction between the human element and the Divine element in the Church.

Of course this is a very general observation , I mean no disrespect to the personal sincerity or the good will that individual protestants or sedevacantist’s may have. They are in my prayers
 
Bataar said:
The sedevacantist church is no different than the church prior to VII.
Click to expand...
Except that they seem to believe that the gates of Hell actually did prevail.
Bataar said:
Rome changed, not the sedevacantists.
Click to expand...
What core dogmas or doctrines changed? I am not talking about disciplines or emphasis in expression, I am talking about changing the basic truth as revealed by God.
 
They don’t consider any person to be the “one” authority anymore. They sort of treat their bishops like mini popes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top