Refutation of the Video’s Objections

Summary

The video presents an argument against sedevacantism, with the objector questioning why sedevacantists and traditionalists lack recent miracles, incorruptible saints, and evidence of divine favor. He asserts that the post-Vatican II Church must be legitimate because its sacraments and exorcisms appear to be effective, and it has seen modern "miracles" such as the alleged incorruptibility of Carlo Acutis.

Bishop Donald Sanborn responds with a theological rebuttal, citing St. Thomas Aquinas and Church tradition. His key points are:

1. Faith, not miracles, is essential – Miracles occur to confirm the faith, but they are unnecessary for those who already believe.

2. The decline of miracles aligns with the world’s loss of faith – The Middle Ages were rich in faith and miracles, whereas today's secular, hedonistic world is devoid of true supernatural signs.

3. God withholds miracles in times of apostasy – Like during Christ’s silence before Herod, God does not grant miracles to a world that mocks Him.

4. The Antichrist will perform false wonders – God will not compete with deceptive miracles used to lead people into error.

5. Divine Providence determines when miracles occur – Many saints were not miraculously spared from martyrdom, reinforcing that miracles serve God's greater plan, not human expectations.

6. A weak faith constantly demands miracles – The need for repeated supernatural reassurances suggests a lack of genuine faith.

Key Quotes

1. “Faith is necessary for the performance of miracles because in the miracle we must become instruments of God.” (St. Thomas Aquinas)

2. “The world is faithless… a world of hedonism and materialism… as faithless as the rotten souls of the chief priests and Pharisees.”

3. “There will be a time in which there will be no miracles performed because God will not want to identify His faith with that of the Antichrist.”

4. “If your faith constantly needs miracles to be reassured, it is a weak faith.”

5. “Miracles are for those who do not have faith; they are not for those who have faith.”

Analysis

1. The Vatican II Church’s “Miracles” Are No Proof of Legitimacy

The objector assumes that post-Vatican II Eucharistic miracles, incorruptible saints, and effective exorcisms prove the validity of the Novus Ordo Church. However, this argument is flawed for several reasons:

• Satan can produce deceptive "miracles." St. Paul warns that the Antichrist will come “with all power, and signs, and lying wonders.” (2 Thess. 2:9).

• The Novus Ordo promotes modernism, religious indifferentism, and heresies condemned by past popes. Why would God validate a false religion with miracles?

• The supposed “incorruptibility” of figures like Carlo Acutis must be critically examined—unlike pre-Vatican II saints, whose bodies have been verifiably incorrupt for centuries.

✅ Sedevacantist Position: True miracles confirm Catholic truth, not apostate movements. If Vatican II were legitimate, it would uphold historic Catholic teachings—not contradict them.

2. The Diminishment of Miracles Signals Apostasy, Not the Church’s Deficiency

Bishop Sanborn correctly highlights that miracles have declined because the world is in a state of apostasy. This was foretold by Our Lady of La Salette: “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.”

• The Middle Ages were rich in miracles because Christendom was flourishing in faith.

• Today’s secular, godless world is undeserving of miracles. Just as Christ remained silent before Herod, God allows modern man to wallow in his disbelief.

✅ Sedevacantist Position: The Novus Ordo Church’s decline in supernatural phenomena aligns with its loss of faith, not with sedevacantists’ alleged failure to produce miracles.

3. God Withholds Miracles in the End Times

Sanborn affirms that God will allow a period where miracles cease entirely so that the faithful are not misled by the false signs of the Antichrist. Vatican II's embrace of ecumenism, naturalism, and worldliness is preparing the way for this deception.

• The Antichrist will perform false wonders to deceive even the elect (Matthew 24:24).

• God’s true followers will not need miracles—they will be sustained by the interior light of faith.

✅ Sedevacantist Position: The Vatican II Church’s “miracles” may be Satanic counterfeits leading people into deception.

4. True Faith Does Not Depend on Miracles

Sanborn’s analogy of a weak faith constantly needing a "starter motor" is crucial. Faith is a supernatural virtue given by God, not something that requires repeated proofs.

• Christ rebuked those who demanded signs: “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign.” (Matthew 12:39)

• Many saints died without witnessing miracles, yet their faith was unwavering.

✅ Sedevacantist Position: The Novus Ordo Church constantly seeks worldly affirmation—it demands social approval, interreligious dialogue, and modernist reforms. True Catholics hold fast to Tradition, regardless of signs.

Key Takeaways

1. Vatican II’s “miracles” do not validate its legitimacy – They must be scrutinized, as Satan can deceive through counterfeit signs.

2. The decline of true miracles is a consequence of modernist apostasy – Just as Christ was silent before Herod, God withdraws miracles from an unfaithful world.

3. The absence of miracles does not disprove sedevacantism – In fact, it aligns with prophecy about the Great Apostasy and the rise of the Antichrist.

4. Faith does not require constant supernatural confirmation – True Catholics persevere without needing extraordinary signs.

Conclusion

Bishop Sanborn’s explanation solidifies the sedevacantist stance:

• The Novus Ordo Church lacks divine legitimacy, even if it claims modern miracles.

• The Vatican II era marks a period of apostasy—not authentic Catholicism.

• The true Church continues in those who preserve Tradition, regardless of whether miracles occur.

Sedevacantists do not need supernatural wonders to affirm their faith. The truth of pre-Vatican II Catholicism is evident in its doctrine, sacraments, and history. The real question is not "where are your miracles?" but rather, "why would God bless a false church with them?"