On the contrary, there's no "smoking gun" of validity, either.  Therefore, canon law tells us (under pain of mortal sin) to avoid doubtfully valid masses.

Your logic makes no sense.  You're the one who argues that all popes since John23 are anti-popes, therefore your argument should be that EVERY new mass is invalid, based on this alone.  If the V2 popes are anti-popes, then the new mass is certainly an anti-mass and invalid.  Every. single. one.

For you to argue otherwise is bipolar.

Are you off some meds, man?  Your last stretch of posts are absolutely moronic.

WHERE did I say that one may attend a doubtfully valid Mass?  I said no such thing.

You claim that if someone holds that the V2 Popes are anti-popes this means that every New Mass is invalid?  WTH are you idiotically ranting about?  That absolutely does not follow.  It's quite clear (in fact it's a dogma) that non-Catholics can have valid Sacraments.

Secondly, what I said is that the invalidity of the Mass cannot be known or proven with certainty, since that certain judgment can only be made by the Church.  And I hold the same regarding the illegitimacy of the popes also.

Take your meds or gets some sleep or something.

And you know what's even scarier, is that two morons upthumbed this post.

As is apparent more and more on this site…Anyone that disagrees with Ladislaus is a moron or “on a rant”. 

Lad, when you say that the new mass “can be valid” then you’re implying it’s ok to attend.  THAT’S the problem for this thread.  You gave a theoretical answer to a practical question.  And you muddied the waters.  That’s bad advice and why I responded.

(because this is another thing he has been telling me...that the church allowed the faithful to take communion in the hand and that the NO is more like the early church).

I will say that your husband's arguments limp, not only that, his arguments are as old as the NO itself, and his are the same arguments that have been answered and refuted over and over again and again for the last 60 years.

“….You’ve heard the objection; “Well, in the old days in the early Church, that is the way they used to do things”. Whenever I hear that I say I’m so glad you brought that up because it is necessary for you to think about this matter.

In the very first generations of the Church, we know that even though the people were very well instructed in their faith because it was a primitive Church, a primitive situation, they had not as yet developed  the rites which expressed their belief. They had as their teachers the Apostles and the disciples of the Apostles, and some of the disciples of Christ Himself.

But Christ only, you might say, laid out certain rough markings for the rites of the Church, and these were to develop over the period of centuries. Their comprehension as I say, of their belief, was probably better than ours, but their ritual had not taken shape.

But we see that as they realized the holiness of what they had been given, then their ritual became more refined so that they strove to find ways to suggest what their faith said, and as the years went on, things became more formalized and more carefully regulated by the Church itself, and more uniformized. Which is to say the better they recognized the holiness of the Blessed Eucharist, the fewer people were allowed to touch the host, and those people only under the most regulated circuмstances.

And Churches were built in order to suggest the augustness of this sacrament, the specialness of the sacrifice. No place on earth was considered to be more holy, more reverent than the Church, for which reason the art was carefully prescribed or regulated or censured, everything was subject to the Church’s law and discipline.

And another thing is important my dear people, it is one thing to be somewhat crude when you know no better, but when you depart from refinement and revert to crudity, you’re responsible – and that is the story of the present movement. You throw aside all the fine manners, the delicacies, the proper religious amenities whereby we show our belief. To throw these aside, is exactly to express your disdain for them, your loss of faith in them, or your disregard of them. Just as it is a much worse thing for civilized people to strip themselves naked than it is for savages to go about unclad not hardly knowing any better. In the second case the guilt is not so great, but in the first case, it is great indeed….”  - Fr. Wathen

I feel like I'm in the twilight zone...he has stated that basically pope pius v wrote that for everyone, but that a pope has the authority to change the mass. therefore it is licit.

As I said earlier, people have been given the notion that the pope has limitless authority - but this is completely wrong. "The role and the duty of the pope is not only not to deviate from what has been established, but to make sure that all his subjects don’t deviate from it."

I can't speak to the subject of Pius V and the Mass, since I haven't studied it, but just wanted to mention something about your general situation. I know that Archbishop Lefebvre believed that the new mass is valid - but illicit. As do the majority of SSPX priests.

When you speak of the validity of the mass, you are actually talking about the validity of the consecration in the new mass, not "the mass" itself.
Whether the consecration is valid or not at *all* of the NO services, we simply do not know because that is something impossible to know while we live.
 What we do know is that the nature of the consecration is not sacrificial, this is demonstrated when the NO priest raises the host and chalice during that service, he is not offering the sacrifice of the cross to God the father, rather, he is showing the people what it is that they are about to eat and drink.

It sounds like your husband may not listen to any evidence that you offer, regarding the new mass. He seems to have made up his mind. Personally, I would allow him to take the children to the new mass. That sounds dreadful I know, but in obedience, it may be the right thing to do. Yes, it will or may confuse the children, but that may be unavoidable anyway.

I too hate that advice, but I agree that it looks as if he chooses to abandon the true faith for the new faith, while ignoring and disregarding the world of evidence against it. 

I tend toward keeping +ABL's view in mind. I don't remember his exact advice about the new mass, only that it is valid (though illicit). Why he believed it to be valid isn't something I recall just now. You may of course be correct about the matter centering around the consecration. I don't think that +ABL would consider it valid, however, if he believed that there were no sacrifice taking place.

I think we need to take into account that *when* he said that, there were still priests around who had remnants of the true faith within them, some that weren't totally liberalized yet.

What he said, and what he did are two completely different things - and he said those things what, 40 years ago?

I think he's a saint, but believe if he came back he would never in a thousand years say the NOM was ok in a pinch, I think he would vehemently condemn the evil thing for what it is, what it has done, and what it's purpose is, namely, destroy the faith of those who go there. 

And that's the point, all anyone needs to do is look at what 60 years of the NO has done to the faith of those who go there. It's fruits are rotten right to the core.

Actually, things aren't much different or worse now than they were 40 years ago. In fact, things may even be better (except that we have a uber-modernist pope). I recall when I participated on the old Angelqueen forum, 15-20 years ago, that there were still plenty of clown masses and other travesties occurring in the NO back then. I recall so many jokes on that forum regarding horrid new masses. We don't hear so much about those anymore. And....the Indult mass is more common now than it was back then. Not that I'm advocating for the new mass. But +ABL was no dummy. I realize that his position isn't popular here, and that's fine. A few of us still hold him up as a beacon of truth and faith. Being in a minority isn't a big concern for me.

True, +ABL was no dummy and *is* a beacon of truth and faith, nor is being in the minority an issue, the reason for the OP is because whoever else does not know, the OP knows that there is a very real danger in what her husband is doing. All anyone needs to do is look at what has happened to the faith of those who go there - she does not want her family to to be in the same boat. She ain't no dummy.

Her concern is that her husband is putting himself and their children in the same danger of losing their faith by going NO that has cost billions over the last 60 years their faith who did the same - the OP knows that's what happens to those who go to the evil thing and is seeking ammo to change her husband's mind - regardless of whatever thoughts +ABL at one time held on the matter - this danger is very real.  

I disagree it's any better, in reality it has only gotten worse over time. People tend to want to think it hasn't gotten worse because over time and  the longer this mess goes on, the more people are conditioned into a type of lethargy over the evil thing and reward it a friendly toleration if not acceptance, while forgetting that the main purpose it was perpetrated is the total destruction of the faith. The only sense we can say it may not be as bad, is in the fact that as time goes on, more and more NO churches close. 

Actually, things aren't much different or worse now than they were 40 years ago. In fact, things may even be better (except that we have a uber-modernist pope). I recall when I participated on the old Angelqueen forum, 15-20 years ago, that there were still plenty of clown masses and other travesties occurring in the NO back then. I recall so many jokes on that forum regarding horrid new masses. We don't hear so much about those anymore. And....the Indult mass is more common now than it was back then. Not that I'm advocating for the new mass. But +ABL was no dummy. I realize that his position isn't popular here, and that's fine. A few of us still hold him up as a beacon of truth and faith. Being in a minority isn't a big concern for me.

Probably depends on where you are, in terms of better or worse.  I honestly just think they got bored with some of their nonsense, which is why you see less of it.  But in some places, it's probably worse.  I forget where, but some bishop in Europe put on display some half naked sodomite guy on a huge banner in front of the church, and you see "pride" Masses with rainbow flags all over the place.  If they've moved on from clowns and dancing nuns, to some extent, it's probably just because it got old ... even for them.

Probably depends on where you are, in terms of better or worse.  I honestly just think they got bored with some of their nonsense, which is why you see less of it.  But in some places, it's probably worse.  I forget where, but some bishop in Europe put on display some half naked sodomite guy on a huge banner in front of the church, and you see "pride" Masses with rainbow flags all over the place.  If they've moved on from clowns and dancing nuns, to some extent, it's probably just because it got old ... even for them.

Yes, you may be correct. It may have just gotten old for them, and hopefully at least some of them left the priesthood. Yes, I know, most here believe that they were never validly ordained anyway.

A year ago, my husband and I moved to an area with no TLM anywhere near. My husband insisted we move here. At first I actually tried visiting every NO parish in the region, hoping that there would be one that was not offensive. But no, such a thing was not to be found. All of the diocesan clergy here are Hispanic. Not that that's a terrible thing, but they all try a little too hard to be liked by everyone. Nothing outright sacrilegious, but they all ad-lib the mass, and add all kinds of social-justice issues to the mass. And the music is mostly protestant hymns. So sad, but then it seems that those who attend those masses don't really want a real Mass.

In one of Bp. Williamson's latest videos, he said that in a lot of areas, there are underground networks of priests (conciliar church) who celebrate the TLM, even if only privately. Some of them are old priests, who never gave up saying the Old Mass. He recommended trying to find these priests, since they are more common than one thinks. He said that God wants to know how hard we are willing to work at finding a Mass. So I'm going to try to find them, if they exist here. As it is now, I stay home and pray the Old Mass in the missal on Sundays.