Breaking free from Sedevacantism

  • Thread starter Thread starter tori2323
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tori2323

Guest
Hello, everybody. To introduce myself briefly, I grew up sedevecantist. For anybody who does not know what that is, it is the belief that Pope Francis and all the popes after Vatican 2 were false and heretical.
After a lot of praying and thinking, I have decided to break free from Sedevecantism. It is just not the solution to the crisis that is hurting our Church today. Do not get me wrong: I love the Catholic Tradition, but I cannot justify living in a 1950’s bubble, being stuck in the past and refusing to move forward.
However, my family (who is deeply and staunchly sedevecantist) does not know of my decision, and I dread telling them, because of the immense pressure I will face by them (“you are a heretic, the Church is false, the Church has apostatized, you will go to hell because you are following a heretic” and so on). I feel confused because I do not know who to turn to. I am attending a sedevecantist parish because of my family, but I can longer attend such a church. And there are no decent churches nearby where I live.

I have a lot of questions, so I would appreciate it so much if somebody would help me with them. I am completely open to a dialogue-type conversation. However, it needs to be conduced with politeness and civility. I have witnessed so much fighting, name-calling, and hatred in the past amongst all sorts of traditionalists that I do not want to see that here. Just…civility, please, even if disagreements arise.

Now, to start it off, my first question:
It’s not a bad thing for the Church to evolve, right? What I mean by that is that change is all right within the Church, provided that it does not affect the Faith. For example, after Vatican 2, masses were said in the languages that people spoke, not Latin. And that is one of the things that Sedevecantists do not like about Vatican 2. But I don’t see why that is a problem. After all, it’s not changing anything related to Faith. It’s just translating the Mass to your native language. The Church is allowed to make a change like that. Your thoughts on this?

Also, why don’t Sedevecantists and even other traditionalists like the priest saying mass in front of the people? I cannot wrap my head around that. Isn’t true that Our Lord said His first Mass around the Apostles, that He didn’t have his back to the Apostles? If that is true, then I cannot understand the uproar about the priest facing the people. I hope you all understand where I am coming from here.

Lastly, please pray for me, because this is currently a difficult time for me and my faith. I do not know how to remain a good and faithful Catholic without going to either extremes ( sedevecantist or ultra-liberal). I am praying hard to God for guidance, but that doesn’t mean it’s any easier for me as I am making this transition from sedevecantist to Catholic.

And now, let the discussion roll! (with civility, of course!)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
May God bless you in your huge and wonderful decision! This isn’t specific to the things you mentioned, but if ever you are having doubts about your decision, read anything written by St. Pope John Paul II and you’ll likely be so filled with hope and wonder that you’ll say yes this guy definitely was a valid Pope and saint and my decision is a good one!
 
oh wow! Thank you so much for those encouraging words. It is definately something I needed 🙂

what works of St John Paul 2 would you recommend, by the way? I am not exactly familiar with much of his writings?
 
tori2323 said:
Isn’t true that Our Lord said His first Mass around the Apostles, that He didn’t have his back to the Apostles?
Click to expand...
Emphasis of Mass is crucifixion not last supper. Followers didn’t have their backs to Jesus on the Cross.
tori2323 said:
after Vatican 2, masses were said in the languages that people spoke, not Latin. And that is one of the things that Sedevecantists do not like about Vatican 2. But I don’t see why that is a problem.
Click to expand...
Saint Pope John XXIII (opened Vat II): “For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time … of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.”
 
What do you think of St John Paul 2 in general? I have heard a lot of unkind words about him from Sedevecantists, for example, that he prayed with other religions, etc…so that’s one of the reasons why they think he was a heretic.
 
tori2323 said:
what works of St John Paul 2 would you recommend, by the way? I am not exactly familiar with much of his writings?
Click to expand...
Salfivi Dolores
Redemptoris Mater
Familiaris Consortio

And maybe some Fr. Mike Schmitz videos while you’re at it.
 
Throughout Church history we have had dissenters. The Arians rejected Nicaea. The Nestorians rejected Ephesus. The Copts and Syriacs rejected Chalcedon…fast forward, the Old Catholics rejected Vatican I… in every era, there are groups of Catholics who think they know better than the living Magisterium. The Church has always evolved and will continue to do so, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We’re not Protestants. Protestants believe they can rely on their own interpretation of scripture. Like them, these radical ultra traditionalists believe they can rely on their own personal interpretation of Sacred Tradition, rejecting an ecumenical council and several Popes.
 
tori2323 said:
What do you think of St John Paul 2 in general?
Click to expand...
I think that like a lot of saints, I get to know them by their writings and their biographies. Once I started reading his writing, I was hooked.
 
exactly! Jesus did promise st Peter that the gates of hell shall NEVER EVER prevail against the Church. Why don’t sedevecantists seem to accept that?
 
Now you may attend some parishes where you find what you see almost jarringly different, but know that there is quite a tide of traditional preferences among young and old Catholics alike that will remedy anything thats too far off in time.
 
oh, wow, I didn’t consider that the emphasis is on the crucifixion. great way to look at it! 🙂

on the second part, wouldn’t it be a little bit unfair that people do not understand what is being said in the Mass? A change such as using one’s native language for saying the Mass does not affect the Faith. This here would be a matter of custom, not dogma or anything like that. Just a thought.
 
tori2323 said:
wouldn’t it be a little bit unfair that people do not understand what is being said in the Mass? A change such as using one’s native language for saying the Mass does not affect the Faith. This here would be a matter of custom, not dogma or anything like that. Just a thought.
Click to expand...
Great thing about Latin: it belongs to no one, so it belongs to everyone. It’s transcendent and doesn’t divide us culturally.

I’ve always wondered what it would be like growing up in a Latin Mass parish as a small child before you can read the missal, but you probably lived that experience so you don’t have to wonder.
 
What also bugs me about the Sedevecantists is their saying that the Church is an apostate, a false, evil, heretical Church, etc… ummm…is that what they are calling the Holy Mother Church? They dare to call the Church that Jesus established false and evil? I don’t know about you, but that sounds an awful lot like Protestant. I cannot abide that. I cannot abide people calling the Church by such names. Yes, there is a crisis in the Church today, and yes, there are some bad people infiltrating it, but this is a time where our Church needs us most. We cannot abandon her in this most difficult time of need. We must fight the good fight for her. We must never give up on her. We cannot abandon her and start our own groups and churches, claiming that they are the one, true church.
There is this really good quote I read. I don’t know what it said word for word, but it went along the lines of : I am a Catholic, and I will always be faithful to our Holy Mother Church. And because I am faithful, I will help clean up this Church for Christ. (regarding the crisis and scandals)
 
yeah, that is one of the great things about Latin, that it doesn’t divide us culturally. We could literally go to any Catholic Church in any country, and we would still have the Mass in Latin. That is the one thing people would have in common, despite the different languages they speak and the different customs they have.

We can still experience the beauty of the Mass without having to know what is being said. The Latin gives an aura of mystery, as it were. At least that is what my Sedevecantist priest said.
 
I mean, I loved attending the Latin Mass. As a child, I always loved looking at the statues and the artwork, the gold of the priest’s vestments, the singing, the overall devotion of it. I had a missal for children that I loved using and following. One of the things that I am really grateful to my parents for, even though I was raised sedevecantist, was encouraging me to use and appreciate my missal.
 
Last edited:
tori2323 said:
on the second part, wouldn’t it be a little bit unfair that people do not understand what is being said in the Mass?
Click to expand...
Fair point but then it depends on purpose of Mass - God centered? Or people centered? If the latter, yes we need to accommodate their language, face them, let them participate etc etc. If the former then language, orientation, participation should accommodate God not people
tori2323 said:
A change such as using one’s native language for saying the Mass does not affect the Faith.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. Latin is fundamentally different from English since “King of the Jews” was inscribed on Crucifix in Hebrew, Greek and Latin and since the blood soaked Crucifix represents Satans defeat, the Demonic really hates those 3 languages. Exorcists have confirmed it based on how long it takes praying in those languages v others to send demons fleeing
 
Last edited:
Good point…but saying a Mass in one’s native tongue wouldn’t invalidate the Mass.

As to the first part, I would tend to agree that the Mass is about God, not about us, since we are worshipping God, not ourselves.
It just makes me wonder why Vatican 2 would introduce such a big chance like facing the people during Mass.
But on the other hand, wouldn’t this be a considered just a matter of custom? Facing the people and having more participation—isn’t the Church allowed to allow things like this? Would permitting these changes really invalidate a Mass, as the Sedevecantists think? Isn’t it true that before the Council of Trent, before the Tridentine Mass was established, priests said masses different ways? I’m not sure about that, because my knowledge of Church history isn’t as broad.
 
tori2323 said:
but saying a Mass in one’s native tongue wouldn’t invalidate the Mass.
Click to expand...
No of course not , you didn’t get impression I said that?
tori2323 said:
It just makes me wonder why Vatican 2 would introduce such a big chance like facing the people during Mass.
Click to expand...
I believe it was part of ecumenical movement to try unify Christian faiths. So they made changes consistent with other Christian faiths.
tori2323 said:
Would permitting these changes really invalidate a Mass, as the Sedevecantists think? Isn’t it true that before the Council of Trent, before the Tridentine Mass was established, priests said masses different ways?
Click to expand...
No. Good analogy I heard was both OF mass and EF mass are equally valid like a perfect diamond. But just like the setting of a diamond can affect how bright it sparkles, the setting of EF makes the valid mass sparkle more than OF
 
Our Lord Jesus Christ said that He would not leave us orphans (see St. John’s Gospel). Orphans are children who have no parents. Since He is Truth Incarnate, He meant what He said. He gave us the Church and the Papacy. Both will last until the end of time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top