CathInfo.com

I'm a borderline sedevacantist. While I believe the VII popes are not valid popes, I'm not sure I agree with everything regarding orders of NO priests and bishops, Eucharistic miracles, etc. I was recently talking to someone about this and they brought up some objections I hadn't considered before and was wondering what you guys would say.

Objection 1: Jesus would not have abandoned His children on a global level
The Novus Ordo church/mass is valid, albeit inferior to the TLM because Jesus wouldn't have abandoned his children on a global level. When the NO Mass was implemented, most Catholics did not have a traditional option to go to and there wasn't the internet available to look up specific information and communications regarding the issue, so the only choice was to go along with the NO Mass or stop going altogether. Because the NO is valid, albeit inferior, FSSP and the like are also good and valid traditional options.

Objection 2: Mary would have warned us
Our Blessed Mother has warned us about so many things and tried to help her children that if we didn't have a real pope or if we weren't supposed to go to the NO Mass, she would have warned us. There are many valid apparitions and mystics who received various messages and warnings from Our Lady and none of them ever came away saying that we should avoid the (NO) mass. In fact, she warned us that during the crisis in the church, there would be bishop against bishop, implying therefore that the bishops are valid.

Objection 3: Eucharistic miracles
If the priests aren't valid priests how could they perform a consecration of the host that results in a Eucharistic miracle? It seems to definitely be a supernatural miracle, but if it's not divine, it must be demonic. However, what would the devil gain from this. Say an ashiest or even a protestant witnessed one of these "false" miracles and converted to the novus ordo church. You and I would recognize they are joining a false church, but they would be ignorant of that. If it was their intent to join God's true church after witnessing that miracle and in their ignorance, they joined the novus ordo church, wouldn't we have to believe that God, in his infinite mercy, would not deny salvation to that person based on the fact that joined the novus ordo?

I am gonna get whacked for this but I'm gonna say it anyway.  I'm not a sedevacantist, nor do I attend the NO.  However, I find the 1st objection quite compelling for this reason: Scripture says that "not a bone of it shall be broken" so it doesn't make sense that the bulk of the body of the Church was broken off back in the 60s for implementing the NO. Instead, the Body of Christ was dislocated, like It was on the cross. Of course, much of the laity and clergy broke themselves off imbibing the modernism that followed, but that the pope and bishops cut off 98% of the laity in one fell swoop? That means the church officially quit feeding Her sheep one day. Sorry, I don't buy it even though I don't like the Novus Ordo. But when I reflect on what happened and why, I see that Christ mercifully keeps the Church together by His Flesh... at least for those wanting to stay Catholic.  Many of us who hovered in the NO for years after the new mass took over, were not trying to leave the Church. We didn't even know what was going on.  Back then I received communion daily and visited the Blessed Sacrament weekly in the NO and did it for many years.  It's become pretty difficult to maintain one's faith over there in the NO, but not impossible. Faithful NO laity should not be equated with protestants just because they attend a long time official practice of the Church. Trads insist that if traditional priests hadn't left, there would be no true church left. I only half agree with that because God always keeps the Church alive some how.  Trads shouldn't let themselves off the hook as easily as that. Perhaps the shepherds should have stayed and fought and not left their sheep to the wolves.