Q: If the Novus Ordo Church is not the Catholic Church, then where was the Church after Vatican II before sedevacantism emerged?
The argument that the Church did not really exist in the period between the proclamation of the Documents of the Vatican II Council (or any earlier point when the pope and hierarchy departed from the faith) and the first public declaration of sedevacantism, can’t at all be followed. Why? Because the Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ, was established by Jesus Himself and not by anyone ecclesiastical “declaration”. As long as a person, baptized in the Catholic Church, is keeping the true Apostolic Faith, he or she is a Catholic and even the disaster of heresy or aortal apostasy of the “conciliar church” is not able to separate a person from the Church as long, of course, as this person is not accepting a schismatic, heretic or apostate position. From the Letter of Saint Athanasius to His Flock:” Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”
Of course it is also very important for clarity as well as for the people that the legitimate authorities of the Church do declare publicly the truth of the Faith respectively the dogmas objectively. Yes. But the existence of the already established Church does not depend essentially on such declarations. We have the dogmas and two thousand years of Church’s teaching. It was then also very helpful and in some regards also necessary that Archbishop Thuc gave the Declaration of Sedevacante in 1982. Nevertheless, a heresy is a heresy and the truth is the truth – independent of the question if an authority of the Church has publicly proclaimed it or not.
Example. When the Catholic Church proclaimed in 325 the dogma of divinity of Jesus Christ, by no means did it mean that Jesus wasn’t true God before 325, before the Church has officially proclaimed it. The Church always believed in that and only because Arius doubted it, the Church saw the necessity to proclaim it publicly with the whole dignity of the Apostolic Office as a clear dogma – in order to dispel any hesitation in anyone’s mind.
The missing unity and substance of Catholic identity and nature in the Novus Ordo does not assure continuity in the tradition.
The Church is indefectible; it exists until the end of the world. The indefectibility has to be maintained, otherwise you are proposing me another church, a different one. How could you point at the Novus Ordo as indefectible – that there is no defect in it? Isn’t it a joke and mockery of Catholicism?
For the Novus Ordo church to be the continuation of Catholicism, one would have to prove that Novus Ordo teaching, including “Pope” Francis I and his hierarchy, is in union with the Church (one Lord, one faith, the same Sacraments) – which is impossible!
Besides, Catholics do not believe in the church which proclaimed ecumenism (What participation has the temple of God with idols?), validity of the Old Covenant, marriage “annulmentism”, conciliarism, subjectivism of consciences – I do not believe that this is the Catholic one. “He who seeks the truth must be guided by these fundamental principles; that is to say, that Christ the Lord instituted and formed the Church: wherefore when we are asked what its nature is, the main thing is to see what Christ wished and what in fact He did.” (Pope Leo XVIII, Satis Cognitum)
Fr. Saenz y Arriaga (and his team) under his pseudonym Maurice Pinay warned about what is going to happen at VII. Two months before the Council assembled in 1962 his book The Plot Against the Church was given to every bishop. (The book is now available on www.archive.org under the pseudonym Maurice Pinay.) Of course there isn’t any full explanation of what happened to the Church.