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?

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).

It's as if the Archbishop was almost as confused as the "Confused Catholics" he wrote. 

I just don't like this attitude where Archbishop Lefebvre is propped up as some "rule of faith", with not only neo-SSPX but now different Resistance groups arguing ("WE are the true followers of Lefebvre." -- "No, WE are."  Sometimes you can find +Lefebvre saying both things, depending on when it was (whether early 1980s, where he was more pro-Vatican, or else Assisi and later, where he was borderline SV at times).

You can find +Lefebvre at one time talking about the NOM satisfying Sunday obligation and at other times saying that Catholics can't attend it because it's a non-Catholic rite (which it is).

Hi Ladislaus-

In the recent Kansas interview I did with Bishop Williamson, he explained that there really never was a "wavering" Lefebvre:

He always held to the principle of trying to help Rome come back to the faith:

When Rome feigned interest, or gave other reason for optimism, he moved toward them; once he realized they had no desire to return, he cut them off.  So the principle always remained the same, though extrinsic circuмstances could cause him to apply that principle in one direction or the other.

I understand how that could look like wavering, if one was not aware of this principle of action, but the reality was that he was remarkably consistent in this regard.

As an aside, it also demonstrates why the Resistance is clearly right (and the SSPX clearly wrong) about how Lefebvre would react to the prospects of a practical accord with modernist Rome today: 

The preponderance of pre-1988 quotes show a willingness to work with Rome; the preponderance of post-1988 quotes show the opposite.  The reason is the principle previously adduced (i.e., a desire and willingness to bring Rome back to the faith, until he realized they had no interest).

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.

I ask because it can be used many to to be prove that the Novus Ordo Missae is valid, but I wanted to see the contrary position....

Question: As far as there are three main parts of the Mass, am I right? There’s the liceity, the morality and the validity. Would you explain each of these and give a little explanation of each of these in their different areas.

Fr. When you use the word liceity you’re referring to the question of whether the new mass is legal.
When you speak of validity, you are discussing whether the consecration of the mass is valid and true, whether there is truly transubstantiation.

When you discuss the matter of morality, you are questioning whether it’s a sin either to offer the new mass or to attend it.

I hasten to say that if the new mass is against the law, then it is immoral, and if there is a question of validity in the consecration, then it is immoral for anyone to use it.

I ask because it can be used many to to be prove that the Novus Ordo Missae is valid, but I wanted to see the contrary position. I am disappointed that my question was not taken that seriously it would seem to me. I should have qualified it more though. Forgive me. Part of the question would be to add the fact that they have been occurring since after Vatican II. I don't know how the tests of them would compare to those that happened before Vatican II.

Also related to this is what has been maybe pointed out in other threads, and that is the claim that Fr. Ripperger made that demons in exorcisms had the same reaction to hosts consecrated in both the Traditional Mass and New Mass, although the demons can lie.