I have no need to look up the term because from a very young age I witnessed what going to the NOM has done to the faith of those who go there - and it's only gotten progressively worse ever since. That's all anyone needs to know.

More proof you don’t get it.  

Please address my last post and explain how Lefebvre could say in 1980 that Catholics could fulfill their Sunday obligation at a NOM, if the NOM is not a Catholic rite.

There are no conditions by which one could fulfill one’s Sunday obligation by attending a non Catholic rite, or do you disagree?

I agree, there are no conditions by which one I could fulfill one’s my Sunday obligation by attending a NOM.

I corrected the above. Although I believe no one fulfills their obligation by going to a NOM, I am not in any position to say it with certainty, but I can say with certainty that there are no conditions by which I could fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a NOM.

You clearly don’t understand what is meant by the term “Catholic rite,” which is nothing more that worship approved for use in the Church.

Look it up in the CE.

You seem to want to give it an additional, broader, more qualitative meaning.

Your first error leads to a second one: That those who accept the NOM as Catholic are in contradiction if they object to the NOM (when in reality, a proper understanding of the term “Catholic rite” doesn’t hinder us in the least from accepting, for example, all the objections in the Ottaviani Intervention).

Here’s the proof that you (and others) have not properly understood the term “Catholic rite:”

In Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Michael Davies quotes Lefebvre as acknowledging -in 1980- that one can satisfy their Sunday obligation at the NOM. 

But that’s impossible, if the NOM isn’t a Catholic rite, properly understood.

So either Lefebvre didn’t know what a Catholic rite was, or you are wrong.

Which do you find more likely?

Sean, I don’t think I’m following you. Are you saying that just because the good Archbishop *believed* that assisting at the NOM would fulfill one’s Sunday obligation and thus must be a Catholic rite, makes it a fact?

Sean, I don’t think I’m following you. Are you saying that just because the good Archbishop *believed* that assisting at the NOM would fulfill one’s Sunday obligation and thus must be a Catholic rite, makes it a fact?

I believe it’s exceedingly unlikely that Archbishop Lefebvre would say one could satisfy their Sunday obligation by attending a non Catholic rite, and even more unlikely that he didn’t have the competency to know what a Catholic rite was or wasn’t.

Moreover, while understanding and accepting that sedevacantists disagree with Lefebvre on a whole slough of issues, the Hewkonians pretend to be his most faithful followers, and I find it ironic and hypocritical, therefore, for them to object that the St. Thomas Aquinas passage doesn’t apply because the NOM is not a Catholic rite (when the example of Lefebvre’s own admission necessarily implies the exact opposite).

The same could be said regarding their rejection of sanctifying grace passing to well-disposed NOM communicants (which they also reject for the same erroneous argument, once again refuted by Lefebvre).

No: You are saying Lefebvre’s argument is nonsensical (I’m only quoting him).

He was not infallible, and if you believe he erred in this case, then, while I think you’re in no position to second guess him, I do at least appreciate your honesty, if perhaps not your judgment.

Pax tecuм.

I'm not saying +ABL was no good, heck, I've been using mainly his SSPX for the Mass and sacraments since they started, he is one of my / all trad's hero's who I think is absolutely, positively going to be declared a saint some day.

But we do not need to claim we are superior to him in any way to say that what he said does not make a shred of sense. It simply does not make any sense for him (and many of his SSPX priests) to be saying the NOM is ok to go to "if that's your only option" or "to meet your Sunday obligation", or for whatever reason.

No matter how you slice it, that makes no sense at all for him or his priests - or any trad priest for that matter, to say such a thing.

I trust I do not need to go into the laundry list of reasons as to why it makes no sense. 

I don't see a quote for this.  Do you have it?

“Those who feel themselves obliged in conscience to assist at the New Mass on Sunday can fulfil their Sunday obligation.”

https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm 

Continue reading past the above quote.....

"It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are then free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics, even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith."

There is more.

Indeed there is more, but it only digs your hole deeper:

The passage you supply only clarifies that Lefebvre did not believe all NOMs were “sacrilegious Masses or Masses which endanger our faith” per se, because as Michael Davies explains immediately following the Lefebvre’s quote I provided:

”Thus where the Archbishop states that ‘these New Masses are incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation,’ he is referring to New Masses which involve ‘sacrilegious acts which pervert the faith by diminishing it.’ The declaration which he made at my request makes it quite clear that this was indeed his meaning.”

Note the italics here on “these new Masses” above are from Davies, not me.

For Stubborn’s (honest?) rendition to be correct, we must believe Lefebvre’s is having a schizophrenic episode, simultaneously declaring Catholics can, and cannot, fulfill their Sunday obligation at the NOM.

I worry that you are now leaving the obvious realm of truth and honesty, and grasping at straws in the attempt to prop up your thoroughly refuted error.  But if you would do that, what good is your religion?

For practical purposes I recommend stay indifferent since these miracles are not de fidei. To put things in a similar perspective, none of the Marian aparitions are de fidei either. In theory I could go to the extreme of not believing in the aparitions in Fatima or OL of Guadalupe. It would not be sinful in itself.

A thumbs-up for that one.  👏👏