Mgr Lefebvre once declared to a common friend who was questioning him about Sister Lucy: «She says so many things!» In this he demonstrated that he had no faith in the revelation of the great Secret of Fatima, communicated in stages since 1941. Furthermore, did not the nun attend the New Mass in her Carmel at Coimbra? That is why Mgr Lefebvre never spoke of Fatima. He thus shared entirely in the hierarchy’s blindness of which Sister Lucy had warned Father Fuentes in 1957.

     There is more. Sister Lucy was forewarned well before ourselves not only of the «errors» of Russia which were to spread war, famine and persecutions against the Church, but also of the cause of these terrible punishments: the «outrages, sacrileges and indifference» by which the Most Precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ were going to be offended, and indeed already were in the prophetic present.

Is the new rite of Paul VI valid or invalid? The words of the Angel of Portugal answer the question: it is certainly valid. Otherwise the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ would not be «horribly outraged», as they would not actually be present.

     For forty years now we have witnessed the universal development of this «indifference» to the Real Presence of Christ, forsaken «in all the tabernacles of the world», either under the pretext of rejecting the new ordo, or, on the contrary, under its influence, insofar as the New Mass minimises the Real Presence of the Host after the consecration, emphasising instead the Lord’s spiritual presence realised at the very beginning of the celebration by the assembled community!

Indifference to the true, real and substantial Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ leads to an  outrageous unconcern for all that touches the salvation of the world through the Cross of Jesus, through His propitiatory sacrifice liturgically re-enacted at every one of our Masses. And this in turn leads to the  sacrileges of   intercommunion perpetrated by Catholic priests who concelebrate the Eucharist with Protestant ministers.

Consequently we can dismiss the claims of both groups: the integrists who declare the New Mass invalid and thus refuse to adore the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ truly present in all the tabernacles of the world, and the conciliar and postconciliar reformists. To both one and the other apply these words of Our Lord: «Leave the dead to bury their dead.» (Lk 9.60) For they are indeed dead according to these other words: «If you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will have no life in you.» (Jn 6.53)

http://www.crc-internet.org/apr1a.htm

Some say that the 'Sr Lucy'-- who approved the new rite of the anti-pope Paul VI(6)-- was not Sr Lucy at all.

That is not a very good test, as the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ has always suffered horribly, by persons receiving in mortal sin, or host being stolen for a black mass, plus other outrages.

True, but the prayer goes on to state, "In all the Tabernacles of the world".

Thank you for the kind welcome!

 I don't think I swallow that one as well. So your theory that the same people that believe the Sr Lucy imposter story will tell the imposter story re: Paul VI(6) is not necessarily true.

Quote

That is not a very good test, as the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ has always suffered horribly, by persons receiving in mortal sin, or host being stolen for a black mass, plus other outrages.

True, but the prayer goes on to state, "In all the Tabernacles of the world".

Thank you for the kind welcome!

Of course that is where the Blessed Sacrament is kept.  

As far as Sister Lucy is concerned, I realized many years ago, it is not wise to follow man, in this case a woman, we must follow only what Christ taught, and the novus ordo is not it.  

and the novus ordo is not it

Fatima is beyond question the real deal, but the NO Mass while I agree that it is valid, I would get physically ill if I went to one.

Is the new rite of Paul VI valid or invalid? The words of the Angel of Portugal answer the question: it is certainly valid. Otherwise the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ would not be «horribly outraged», as they would not actually be present.

This "argument" holds water about as well as fifty-year-old cheesecloth.

That aside, welcome to the site.

Granting that the man is, in fact, a priest, so long as he uses the correct matter and form, and intends to do what the Church does (which is manifested through his use of the correct matter and form, etc), validity is to be presumed -- and there is no reason to doubt.

IMO, the validity of the NOM is doubtful, to put it mildly, due to defect of form.  I know there are those who believe the contrary...so be it.