CathInfo.com

This ^^ is a perfect example of what I said.

Although personally, I believe +ABL is likely a saint, +ABL signed off on the changes at V2, he then later retracted his signature. Such was the confusion and chaos in the early years of the revolution.

+ABL himself was among those who seemed to only understand clearly that the new "mass" did not satisfy his own obligation. He did not say it, he avoided it, he did not train his priests in it, he in fact fought vehemently against it, yet he says it satisfies the obligation - where is the sense in this? Honest question.  I believe he said so because of who perpetrated it, certainly not for what it is.  

In seeing the devastation it has caused to the faith of billions and still causes, if a trad can still believe it sanctifies and not destroy faith, then they have a serious issue going on. Trads, seeing what it has done to the multitudes since it's perpetration, should be afraid to set foot in it for fear of losing their faith, as has been the case of the many who have gone and still go there. Use the many as the genuine example of why it does not and can never satisfy the obligation. That's really all there is to it.



 

This rejection of Lefebvre is refreshing candor, but I can assure you that the confusion is yours, not Lefebvre's.
The sense in it is here: 
When he is referring to intrinsic evil, he is describing it philosophically/Scholastically, not morally.
That realization removes the apparent contradiction you (erroneously) think to perceive.
The proof of it is that ABL says one can satisfy their obligation, which could not be possible of NOM attendance were an intrinsically evil moral act.
But you don't want to allow that, you you create a new narrative in which ABL wavers and contradicts himself.
Better than allowing one in extreme necessity, or scrupulous, to attend the NOM (you think)!!
There is no doubt that ABL's position in the matter hardened in later years, but he never changed his theology, and he never excluded those in necessity from the NOM.

This rejection of Lefebvre is refreshing candor, but I can assure you that the confusion is yours, not Lefebvre's.
The sense in it is here:
When he is referring to intrinsic evil, he is describing it philosophically/Scholastically, not morally.
That realization removes the apparent contradiction you (erroneously) think to perceive.
The proof of it is that ABL says one can satisfy their obligation, which could not be possible of NOM attendance were an intrinsically evil moral act.
But you don't want to allow that, you you create a new narrative in which ABL wavers and contradicts himself.
Better than allowing one in extreme necessity, or scrupulous, to attend the NOM (you think)!!
There is no doubt that ABL's position in the matter hardened in later years, but he never changed his theology, and he never excluded those in necessity from the NOM.

Intrinsic or extrinsic what's the difference? - either way it apes the True Mass and as such, is evil in and of itself. All anyone needs to do is compare it to that which it replaced, indeed, that is the only thing it can be compared to.

As I said, your previous post served as a good example of what the perception of the evil thing is, always based on who perpetrated it, rather than what it actually is and does to those who go there. I don't expect an answer, but think about why +ABL himself never said it and fought against it - even got himself excommunicated indirectly on account of him not saying it and his condemnation of it.

Do you not see, even after all this time, the devastation to the faith it has caused to the many who go there? Do you think going there will help you when it has proven to destroy the faith of the many who go there? Always best to learn by others mistakes - no?

You said above: Better than allowing one in extreme necessity, or scrupulous, to attend the NOM (you think)!!
I lived through that necessity and witnessed many families in extreme necessity who never allowed themselves to go there - to these, God gave the True Mass in His own good time. They never compromised and it was largely due to them that +ABL came out of retirement and got involved in the capacity that he did.

You want the True Mass? Then show God where your heart lies by not compromising, ever, and if need be, He will send a priest to your front door. That's the way it worked in the early days of the revolution, that's the way God works. Don't be among the many who go there and have lost the faith, stay true to the faith and you'll never go there, not even for funerals and weddings - because of what it is.

 

Everything: The former allows of no exceptions (if we are speaking of intrinsic evil in the moral sense, but of course, we really are not), while the latter does.
But obviously, if you can attend the NOM passively, we are not speaking of intrinsic evil in the moral sense.
Could you attend an abortion passively?  No.
Why?  Because it is intrinsically evil in the moral sense.

Ok, then it is intrinsically evil because it was invented with the purpose to destroy the faith and Church (if that were possible). We know without any doubt whatsoever that it has all *but* destroyed the faith of nearly all who go there, and while it has severely injured the Church itself, the Church has not been destroyed because of what the Church is - yet many trads do not even know where to find the Church any more, thinking it has been destroyed - thanks mainly to the new "mass". I do not choose to be one of them, certainly not for a funeral or wedding.

I went to a NO funeral once about 20 years ago for a work acquaintance, and while I can't say if there was ever a more blasphemous mockery of the True Mass, but the one I went to had to be in the top 10. All who went to it not only saw nothing wrong, they all thought is was a beautiful service! And yes, I confessed doing that and swore off the evil thing forever no matter what after that.

Finally, God does not want those who think they can get away with waving both flags - those people He refers to as being "lukewarm" - you can read Apoc 3:16 to see the fate that awaits the lukewarm. I personally, do not choose to be one of them.