There are  a few hermit saints who do not frequent the Holy Sacraments.

Some of these "hermits" are bed-ridden with no one to bring them Holy Communion while others live alone in forests, in caves, and in deserts. However, these people are few. Our Lord provides as He did for St. Mary of Egypt. She prayed and did penance for her many sins in the wilderness, and our Lord answered her prayers sending a priest to give her absolution and the Holy Eucharist, which she received shortly before she died. She died in pure love. The priest came back a year later to commune her, but he found her incorrupt remains with a note in the sand to bury her as she had died immediately after receiving Holy Communion from his hands.

While I was in the NO convent, I met only a few very holy nuns.  In fact, a few months after I had entered, the prioress gave a homily in Chapter where she chastized the nuns for their lack of holiness. She told us that the popular nuns were definitely not the holiest ones, and the reclusive nuns may not be the holiest of nuns either because some monastics harbor evil thoughts, but keep silent and also keep grudges, so no one knows their struggles with evil thoughts and desires. Thus, even nuns who depart from the world to be with God are not even attaining sanctity.

I have also met elderly NO men and women who radiated the love of God, who kept silent, and who seemed much holier than the NO nuns due to the hardships they had patiently endured with illnesses, occasional lack of food, lack of heat in the cold winters, and lack of air conditioning in the hot summers, but they never complained. When we visited them, we saw their dire poverty. These elderly men and women had received Holy Communion back in the times of Pius XII and before.  They led sheltered lives much like those monastics in a convent. They received 'communion" from Eucharist ministers, not really understanding the evils of Vatican II and what the Vatican II church had ushered in so that Paul VI declared that the smoke of Satan had entered the Church. In their case, they probably received Spiritual Communion, and Our Lord provided for their salvation.

However, in todays Novus Ordo Church, with over 60 years of innovation and revolution (using Cardinal Mahony's words), can anyone be saved?

Thank you for your thoughtful answer.

One last point on the FSSP.  Though there may be many valid priests in the FSSP (only because they were properly ordained in the sspx and then left), the FSSP still only offers the indult TLM.  The indult mass has conditions attached to it which make it immoral, just like the masses in england were immoral when said by priests who had accepted Henry VIII as head of the church.  The indult mass, even if said by a valid priest, and if said perfectly, is still wrong because as JPII said when he started the indult and as Benedict XVI reiterated in his motu, to attend the TLM provided by new-rome, one is publicly accepting the NOM as being equal and of the same rite as the TLM.  This, of course, is not only an untrue fact but it is a condition which is unnecessary, since Quo Primum provides, commands and allows the TLM to be said by all priests, anywhere at anytime.  So, the indult has an anti-catholic condition which makes the TLM sinful and these masses must be avoided.

The FSSP website publicly acknowledges that they accept V2 and the NOM and will use this false-rite whenever new-rome asks them to, out of "obedience".

So are you saying that if people go to these masses for that reason they are sinning, or mortal sinning?  Do you believe the priests doing these masses are mortal sinning?

So are you saying that if people go to these masses for that reason they are sinning, or mortal sinning?  Do you believe the priests doing these masses are mortal sinning?

There is a difference between objective mortal sin and subjective guilt for it.  For example, if a 3 year old blasphemes, this act is wrong and offensive to God.  Objectively, it is a sin because blasphemy against God is evil.  But subjectively, the child is not guilty since he doesn't know what he is doing.  Just because the child is not guilty does not mean that God is not offended, nor does it mean that the act is not evil.

In the same way, objectively the TLM is true, good and beautiful.  The NOM is immoral because it's illegal, it's sinful if it's invalid and, in many cases, it is sacrilegious, absolutely blasphemous and odious in God's sight.  Further, the indult is objectively wrong because one who attends is publicly accepting the NOM as good, when it is not.  An indult mass is also said in the same church where the NOM is said, and due to its sacrileges and blasphemies, such churches are desecrated and according to canon law, a mass is not allowed to be offered in a desecrated place because all that is given to God, and even the church where it is given, must be pure and spotless.  If it is defiled, then God is offended because He is given less than what we are able to give, like Cain who was not pleasing to God since he didn't give his best fruits and animals.

If the english catholics would rather suffer martyrdom instead of going to a mass where the priest had accepted Henry VIII as head of the church, how much more should we avoid the indult, which is an even greater compromise?  In the case of the english, at least for the first few years of anglicanism, the mass was EXACTLY the same as it had been before.  The priests were all valid, the mass was valid - the only difference was the "condition" that those who attend are publicly accepting Henry VIII as their pope.

The indult has a condition as well, which is much worse than anglicanism.  Those who accept the NOM as the "ordinary form" of the Church, as being pleasing to God, are accepting all the communion in the hands, all the talking, hugging and irreverences, all the faulty consecrations, all the eucharistic ministers, etc, etc, etc.  All of this is accepted because it's ALL PART of the NOM. 

From a subjective, personal guilt standpoint, only God knows who is guilty and to what extent, for those that attend the NOM or the indult.  All we can do is eduate people about the objective evils of the NOM and indult and let God deal with the heart and with the level of sin.

That might mean something to those that think the ABL was some kind of a perfect traditionalist saint all along, but in reality, ABL was a cat that fell, and in the end managed to land on his feet. What do I mean by that?
ABL celebrated the Novus Ordo mass for quite some time till his seminarians convinced him not to do it. ABL signed all the docuмents of Vatican II. ABL stopped the worldwide response against Vatican II, by obeying Paul VI. ABL passed on to his seminarians the teaching that is the pillar of Vatican II, his belief that people in any religion can be saved by their belief in a God the rewards, which to this day is the Achilles heal of the SSPX, bringing them back to the counterfeit VatII church. If people in any religion can be saved by their belief in a God the rewards, then there are no errors in Vatican II, for it dogmatizes the false theory. That is why ABL signed everything.

Could it be that what ABL taught about salvation is what has always been taught by the Catholic Church?