Putting aside the name-calling (”sedevacantist” which I find as offensive a term as “teabagger” OR “modernist” which most people misunderstand) for the moment, my problem is exactly that Vatican II was called as a pastoral council and NOT a dogmatic council. The difference being that a dogmatic Council is called specifically to answer doctrinal issues. Yet, Catholics are told they MUST accept the teachings as dogmatic. No less a figure than the late Jihn Cardinal Krol wrote me once to say that all councils are dogmatic.
Taking him at his word, he never answered why the Mass promulgated in perpetuity by Pope St. Pius V is replaced by the Novus Ordo. Something promulgated in perpetuity cannot be replaced. So, the conundrum remains. Do you go against the Church and accept the Modernist heresy (see Lamentabili Sane Exitu) or do you remain with the teachings of the Church up to Vatican II?
Do you accept that the Church needed “hope and change” (there they go again!)to fundamentally alter the Church? Where did that notion come from? Are the results of hope and change positive?
Most people who are called “sedevacantist” did not start out that way. They are deemed unacceptable and thus labeled/libeled into a position they did not choose.
I don't consider using the term sedevacantist as namecalling, since I've observed their own use of the term. Sedes have been very outspoken in their contention that the chair of Peter is vacant, so I'm not sure that they would find offensive this way of clarifying their belief. Also - "teabagger" has a sexual connotation, so I'm at a loss as to how you can even compare the two terms.
NTHockey,
Sedevacantism isn’t merely an epithet, like “teabagger,” (which I object to entirely because it’s among the most vulgar and crude of sexual terms). It’s a term which accurately describes an actual, objectively stated belief. And as I stated, I wouldn’t call you a sedevacantist if you made a distinction between pastoral councils and doctrinal councils.
Also, I already acknowledged that I would have the gravest of difficulties with Vatican II had it actually stated what people falsely characterize it as having stated. Vatican II did not inhibit, replace or otherwise challenged the Tridentine mass. In fact. it explicitly upheld the Latin Mass.
Verdugo,
This is where I think there is heroism among the SSPX crowd, yet evil among the Sedevacantists: They have done precisely what St. Vincent commended to them, without lapsing into the apostasy and heresy of SSPV.