I'm a sedevacantist, not by desire but by necessity; I don't want to be a sedevacantist, it's just what my eyes tell me. I lack a lot of the experience that you two and others here probably have. I don't have the first experience with the Novus Ordo that you might have so I don't know if it's just as awful as it is in my imagination and from the scandalous images that I've seen of it online.
Be thankful that the Holy Ghost lead you directly to the true Faith without sojourning through the muck of conciliardom. I spent the first 40 years of my life in conciliardom, most of it in relatively conservative to very conservative parishes. Even in those parishes, I experienced watered-down doctrine and concerns regarding sacrilege brushed aside. I even saw altar girls in what has to be, from my experience attending many parishes in travels and such, one of the most conservative parishes in the country.
I always knew something was amiss in the NO. Looking back, I see that freemason Bugnini designed the NO "mass" to be man-worship. Just one example, I remember thinking the priest was God when I was a very small child, and now realize that that was probably by design.
I urge you to read "The Great Sacrilege." Fr. Wathen wrote that in the early 1970s and it is as though he was able to look into the future and predict the many ills and heresies the NO "mass" would ultimately bear and embody.
I have doubts about my position because of the way I came to it; it is baffling on the face of it to deny that that great organization that the world recognizes as the Catholic Church is in fact a sham, and that I "know better than all the bishops and all the theologians with their degrees", etc.
But those liberal/modernist bishops & theologians (relatively few in number compared to all time) know better than the Church of 1,958 years? I think not.
Sedevacantism does not make the Church a sham. The Church lying, double-speaking, and leading souls to hell by embracing, even by appearances, heresy would make it a sham. It took me quite some time to grasp that--but it makes sense now.
I don't have any traditionalist chapel near me so I'm tempted to go to the local Novus Ordo cathedral just because I'm fed up of being the only Catholic that I know, and because, like I said, I've never experienced the Novus Ordo first hand.
"I'm tempted" is apt phrasing. The devil is trying to lure you there by playing on your need to associate with other Catholics. Perhaps "being the only Catholic that I know" is your cross to bear--or your test. Embrace it as part of your path to eternal salvation. Don't trade it for the company of others for what can be measured in days, weeks, months, years, decades, or even a century.
If you have learned the Faith via traditional sources and cling to tradition, you will be a lonely misfit in conciliardom.
In conciliardom you either have 1) someone who has not been validly ordained mockingly feigning to put the Body and Blood on the altar and people are treating His Presence without respect; or 2) the Body and Blood are in fact put on the altar and treated disrespectfully. Either way is sacrilegious.
I've asked for that particular evidence because I believe it would be the most emphatic and incontrovertible to back up the sedevacantist position. I know it may be hard to produce such evidence precisely because of the weasely way that that the neo-modernists tend to avoid being dogmatic in favour of being "pastoral".
Why would you want to put yourself in that framework in light of "the weasely way that that the neo-modernists tend to avoid being dogmatic in favour of being 'pastoral?'" Just to be around a few people who also call themselves "Catholic" but who at least lack the fullness of the Faith, even if they aren't outright heretics?