CathInfo.com

Because r&r traditionalism is in fact a wrong position, the Magisterium of the Church rightly rejects it.

Only Indult traditionalism is the correct position. Cardinals +Burke and +Sarah embrace true Tradition.

They embrace Tradition cuм Petro et sub Petro, in the Church and for the Church, not apart from the Church, and against the Church. Name some alleged errors or heresies taught universally (something not even possible, if you have the Catholic faith, since the ordinary universal Magisterium of the Church is infallible) by the Church's Magisterium. The main issue with r&r (as opposed to indult) is it denies the indefectiblity of the Church's Magisterium

PS: Sedevacantism, in the meanwhile, is an outright Heresy that denies the Church's Magisterium altogether.

"Wathenism", rejected by Archbishop Lefebvre himself in the early years, the opinion that the NOM is supposedly sinful, is yet another error and heresy that denies the Indefectibility of the Church. Archbishop Lefebvre said Wathenism was "promoting Atheism" as Roman Catholics would stop being Catholics if he encouraged them to stop assisting at Mass in their local Parishes. The true opinion on this matter is taught by Fr. Chad Ripperger. The NOM is valid, and gives grace to Good Catholics, but the TLM is objectively superior, and merits more grace for the Church.

I think you have a wrong understanding of Archbishop Lefebvre. Perhaps you can read some of his letters and books. He called the new mass a "bastard rite". He was not a sedevacantist. You can compare the new mass to the cranmer table and what transpired during the Protestant revolution 500 years ago. History repeats itself. There's only one Mass of all time and it's the Tridintine Mass.

You don't have to be a sedevacantist to understand that position. To put the rites on two pillars "ordinary and extraordinary" and say that only one is preferable is a travesty. One is legitimate and the other is a Protestant meal service, not the Catholic Mass. These errors come from the Ecclesia Dei/Benedict XVI era. They purposely muddled the minds of many traditional Catholics by introducing the indult everywhere within the corrupt modern church. It became nothing more than "smells and bells" ,when the liturgy was not even the heart of the issue. They had changed the Faith and dethroned Christ as King. They needed of course, a new mass to go along with their new theology.    

I have read +Lefebvre. +Lefebvre said in the early years:

"“Should all the world’s churches be emptied? I do not feel brave enough to say such a thing. I don’t want to encourage atheism."[10.]”

Here, Archbishop Lefebvre [+ABL] precisely expresses the Truth that telling Roman Catholics to empty all Diocesan Churches encourages only Atheism.

A 2nd time: “if one does not have the choice and if the priest celebrating Mass according to the Novus Ordo is faithful and worthy, one should not abstain from going to Mass.”[44]”

See: reasonstobechristian.com/f/major-mistake-sspx-is-making-which-%E2%80%9Cencourages-atheism-per-abl?blogcategory=1.9+FSSP%2FSSPX%2FSede-Vacantism

There have been Eucharistic Miracles at the New Mass. How many eucharistic miracles in protestant services? The New Mass still professes the Real Presence and many Protestants like Dr. Scott Hahn and Scott Hahn have become Catholic after Vatican II and reject Protestant ideas and hold perfectly Catholic views on the Holy Mass. Dr. Scott Hahn also holds that the TLM is "objectively superior" to the NOM and thus is none other than an Indult trad.

75% of Catholics now don't believe in the true presence. That means that the priests are not teaching the truth on it or showing it by their actions. The new liturgy shows it only to be a memorial and not a true sacrifice.

I personally am not sedevacantist and I also hold that the novus ordo Mass MAY be valid in some cases, therefore there may have been eucharistic miracles in the new church. You will find other members on here with similar opinions. You might compare the true presence of Our Lord in the novus ordo to when heretics stole the Blessed Sacrament and stabbed at it with a knife and it bled on the table. Thats basically the abuse of it when women ministers pass it around, and it is tossed on the floor. People chew gum and the host at the same time, etc. I used to be in the novus ordo and I saw the abuses first hand. One janitor was sad to have to clean up hosts that people tossed under the pews every Sunday. The janitor was from south america and was more respectful than the priest himself.

 Pope Saint John Paul II used religious liberty to bring about the downfall of Communism in the USSR/Soviet Union. Many trads do not know this, but most Catholics do know it, and even many secular historians admit it openly.

You said Pope Saint John Paul II LOL. Friend, you're so naive.
What happened in the 20th Century was an A/B test among the elites for the best system to enslave the goyim. 
One faction believed totalitarian communist regimes were the way to go, whereas others believed an equally godless and
materialistic system like capitalism was more sustainable over the longterm as it provided people with the illusion of
choice. The latter encourages participation and consent to the evils perpetrated by the government while its corporations steer 
the culture into the abyss with the lowest soul sucking forms of entertainment and consumerism. At least the Soviets fostered
classical music for the masses. Here we get gangster rap. 
The elites ultimately want unprecedented temporal power and are themselves deceived by the devil. The devil simply wants souls
and he has determined for his worldly agents that Democracy, which is transitioning to a technocracy is the ideal tool for this.