Understandng of the NOM has nothing to do with sedevacantism. Pax and Stubborn are R&R, and they have a similar view of the NOM that I do. Why do you insist on conflating things over and over again?
It is your/their misunderstanding of Trent and sacramental theology that is off, as well as the NOM.
30 pages of contorted arguments could not dislodge Trent (as though the Church’s dogmas ceased to apply after V2).
All the necessary distinctions missing (sincerity, disposition, obex gratiae, solemn vs essential rite, sacrament incessantly conflated with rite, etc all ignored and passed over in order to protect a desired conclusion).
Add to that a slew of refuted cleverly or ignorantly extracted Lefebvre quotes to support the desired conclusion, and the feeble attempts to explain away Lefebvre’s cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ acknowledgement that grace passes, and his acknowledgment that Catholics satisfy their Sunday obligation by attending an alleged non-Catholic rite, all of which again were erroneously used to conclude Williamson had broken with Lefebvre (but all neglecting to perceive that although Lefebvre’s prudential position regarding attendance at the NOM changed, his THEOLOGY regarding grace passes/does not pass never changed).
Neither did Struthio’s contorted attempts to redefine Trent’s dogmatic pronouncements in his own image prevail (first it was Trent only applies to Catholic rites, and the NOM doesn’t qualify because not “received,” then it was not “handed down,” then the pope had no right to create new rites, etc., all of which was disproven by Mediator Dei, and were it true, would have resulted in graceless sacraments for Pius XII’s new Holy Week rites, etc.
No, my friends, you who opposed the dogma that validly confected sacraments infallibly produce sanctifying grace, and transmit it to all who do not erect an obstacle to said transmission, have, by your own private interpretation, rejected a dogmatic definition, and rendered yourselves at least materially heretics.