Just because I personally wouldn’t hear Mass at the conservative novus ordo doesn’t give me the right to pass judgment upon those who do. Both my parents lead exemplary Catholic lives and attended a very conservative novus ordo into their late 80’s.

Despite going to the n.o. for all but their last few years of life, they had the Faith if not the formal moral and dogmatic theology.

Let’s be  r e a l l y  c a r e f u l  in how we judge and label one another. Neither of my parents were ignorant or of low intelligence. 

I agree 100%. As a Sede with no Sede chapels around or Resistance chapels around, I have no choice but to attend an Indult Mass. And it isn't the laity who should be criticized anyway.

All of reasons for a lack of Traditional Unity among Traditional Catholics falls on the actions of the clergy and the clergy alone:

1.) The Novus Ordo clergy for going along with the continual destruction of the Church; and, yes,

2.) The Traditional Clergy (save Archbishop Lefebvre) for not "stepping up their game" by boldly and publicly declaring the obvious (i.e. that these Novus Ordo "popes" and other clergy are evil destructors who are not even remotely Catholic and, as a result, we should have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with them or their false church). Had there had been HUNDREDS of Archbishop Lefebvres who saw what he saw and had the guts to tell everyone boldly and publicly, then the crisis would've been over long ago. Only 1 man can't do it alone.

That is why the other Trad clergy, especially since he died, are the ones who are responsible for a lack of Trad Unity not only among THE LAITY but also even AMONG THEMSELVES.

It's the Trad clergy who have further divided the Trad laity with silly little squabbles that cannot be settled until the Church has been Truly and Fully Restored. The list of these petty squabbles is enough to make one's head spin:

- Feeneyism vs. Bod/Bob
- Thuc vs. Anti Thuc consecrations
- Pro Indult vs. Anti Indult
- Sedes vs. R&R
- Home Aloners vs. Non Home Aloners
- Pro Una cuм vs. Non Una cuм
And the list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on.......

And who gets judged and attacked for it? The laity who lack any central unity due to the petty squabbles instigated by those in power...Trad Clergy.

Of course, there are the many sleazy, slimy lay organizations and individuals who are not interested in solving the Church crisis or uniting Trads because they make their financial livings on the crisis and division. These folks are also the gutless ones who won't call out "the obvious."

Yes, I am talking about not only the filthy wretched Indult grifters like T. Marshall but also the filthy wretched and deceptively sleazy R&R Remnant crew such as M. Matt and C. Ferrara. For them to say "the obvious" would bankrupt them. Yet, they keep raking in the dough by fanning the flames of disunity and Trads buy into it. Then these same Remnant-loving Trads go and verbally attack other Trads who have no power to do anything or to influence anybody on such a mass scale as all of these grifters whom the Remnant-lovingTrads cannot stop watching and listening to.

So MAYBE these kind of Trads should -- instead of ripping apart Indult Catholics who are just trying to do the best they can under their own circuмstances---focus their anger and bitter criticism toward those who have power in the Trad communities, especially the Trad Clergy who have failed to solve the crisis themselves.

Short Answer: No......Just No.

Longer Answer: The Visible Hierarchy no longer advocates, teaches, supports, or lives according to the teachings taught by The Roman Catholic Church since its inception. This Visible Hierarchy "did a complete 180" in the 1960s and has thus forced the innocent laity into taking either one of two completely illogical positions (if they are to be a part of this Visible Hierarchy):

1.) To be an "obedient heretic" (this is an oxymoron but this is exactly what one does when following the Visible Hierarchy of The Novus Ordo Church. You are faithful to a Church and a Hierarchy that has recently taken everything the True Church has ever stood for and taken the EXACT OPPOSITE position: this "complete 180" is heresy and so to follow it, you would be "obedient" yes, but also a "heretic." And to be part of any Church that is heretical is to be a part of a False Church).

2.) To be a "faithful schismatic" (this is also an oxymoron but this is exactly what one does when Recognizing the Visible Hierarchy of the Novus Ordo Church and yet, at the same time, being "faithful" to the TRUE TEACHINGS of the True Church, teachings which the SAME CHURCH you claim to belong to no longer believes or practices. In fact, the Novus Ordo Church DESPISES the TRUE TEACHINGS and that is why they completely changed them. So, you would be "faithful" to the teachings of the True Church but the "Visible Hierarchy" you also recognize would publicly and viciously call you a "Schismatic" because of you being "faithful" to the original and true teachings, which this Visible Hierarchy now utterly despises).

And so, since one CANNOT be either an "obedient heretic" or a "faithful schismatic", one CANNOT both resist and be a part of the "Visible Hierarchy". One must completely reject it and call it out (both loudly and publicly) for what it truly is: A FALSE hierarchy and a FALSE church.

Which, in practice leaves you, where?
Ignoring the elephant at Mass?
Home alone?

BUT, that having been said, we haven't faced any torture or real suffering from the Conciliar authorities for adhering faithfully to Tradition. What are we expected to endure, as (true) Trads? Words. Lots of bad words. They call us disobedient, schismatic, radical, extreme and other WORDS. That's it. End of list!

And Indulters can't endure that! What a joke! If you can't endure a few mean words, how are you supposed to fight the World 24/7, which is CLEARLY completely against Christ and even His natural order of Creation right now. Protip: you can't. Which is why MOST Indulters are also horribly ignorant and worldly in other areas. They are generally cowards. When you are a coward, you flee conflict. You desire to go with the flow, to keep your head down, to avoid trouble. They are habitually disinclined and unable to inconvenience themselves in the slightest for God and His truth.

I don't think it's fair to generalize that, Matthew.  Some might be due to cowardice, but for others, well, they're afraid of being outside the Church and ... who can blame them, since there's a defined dogma that there's no salvation outside the Church and another where there's no salvation without subjection to the Supreme Pontiff.

So this is a healthy fear that speaks to their having Catholic faith.

To the extent that their motivation might be fear of sin, fear of leaving the Church, etc. ... not only would that not be blameworthy, but would even be virtuous and praiseworthy.

I doubt anyone is afraid of mere words.  Now, a step above that would be being afraid to alienate themselves from their family, which, while one might also find fault with it, is still less shallow that the fear of mere words.

And terms like "schismatic" are "mere words" as you put it ONLY IF you're convinced that the accusaton if incorrect or untrue.

In conjunction with this, there are many who have concluded that V2 was essentially mostly Catholic and could be salvaged with a few revisions here and there, and that if you took the NOM and brought back the chant, Communion on the tongue while kneeling at a rail, offered it in Latin and ad Orientem, it could basically be a Catholic Mass.  Even some Trads like +Fellay hold that V2 is 95% Catholics, and Schneider said the same thing.  Even Michael Davies concluded that the error in V2 was limited to a single word, "publicly" in Dignitatis Humanae and without that word could be easily reconciled with Tradition using that old hermeneutic of continuity.

So if you conclude these do not represent a substantial rupture with Catholicism, but went off the rails to due the abuse of some ambiguities and horrible implementations of the NOM, then a separation of submission to the Holy See would be extremely difficult to justify on those flimsy grounds.

Now, are there some who would prefer the Tridentine Mass but are, say, too lazy to drive 15 minutes longer on Sundays?  Yes ... I've known some.  "Yes, this is a True Catholic Mass and the Novus Ordo isn't, but it's just too far a drive."  In one person's case it involved an extra 15 minutes each way, for a couple of retired people with adult kids grown up and out of the house, but 30 minutes of their do-nothing lives was too much trouble.

God will judge in the end, for each case, what their motivations were, sincere or insincere, cowardice or mistaken judgment, laziness or fear of alienating one's family.  In very few cases is the motivation not some mixed bag of reasons and very rarely is it simply an abstract isolated fear of harsh words.

You're not distinguishing between the 2 different types of judgement -- 1) judgement of the act and 2) judgement of the person.

All true Trads do (and must) pass judgement on the new mass, V2 and the conciliar Church.  These are objectively wrong, factually heretical and we JUDGE them as contrary to orthodox catholicism.  This type of judging is correct, is our duty and is obligatory on all the faithful.

So, objectively speaking, your parents were wrong.  As were/are all those who continue to go to the novus ordo and accept V2.

You are correct in that neither I, nor any Trad, can "pass judgement" on these people and condemn them to hell.  That's God's job, as He is the only one who can read hearts.  Subjectively (i.e. their intentions) are only known to God.

Objectively, they are wrong.  Subjectively, only God can know their intentions/guilt.
If anyone denies/questions 1 doctrine, that's all it takes to be a heretic.  A lot of people outwardly look like they are orthodox, but only God knows what they struggle with personally.
All Trads can rightly label the V2 faithful as material heretics.  That doesn't mean they will all be damned.  Only God knows.  But V2 puts forth many various heresies, which those who follow along, implicitly accept.  "Labeling" someone is based on external facts, which is normal and necessary to do.  Truly judging someone is up to God.

No one is judging your parents to be damned (I have many family members in a similar situation).  But we are judging people like them who, like the English anglicans who compromised with Henry VIII, to be external heretics.

Agreed about the two types of judgment, but there's actually a bit more nuance that has been lost leading to the total subjectivization of judgment / guilt.

Indeed, Jorge did great damage with his "Who am I to judge?" error.

"Is it OK for me to practice sodomy?"  ... "Who am I to judge?"

This is the same grave error that works its way out as Amoris Laetitia.

Neverthless, it's not entirely correct that we cannot judge intentions or guilt, since that is not true in an absolute sense, and there's a distinction to be made.

I see someone pick up a $100 bill that I know doesn't belong to him?  Can i judge his guilt?  No.  Why?  Well, he may have not looked closely and thought it was his own $10 bill that he thought he remembered leaving there.

But then you talk to him and say, "Hey, that's not your $100 bill." ... and he responds, "I know, but I took it anyway."

Now you most certainly can judge guilt and intentions, because they're not manifested in the external forum.

What you cannot judge (at least yet) is the DEGREE of guilt.  Maybe he's out of work and he has children at home who are extremely hungry, knew the $100 belonged to a rich person, and had vowed to God that he would pay it back as soon as he was able to.  Or maybe he is well off himself but just wanted the $100 to buy himself an extra non-essential item, such as a new DVD player.  Both guilty, but to different degrees.

Next layer is that one might have been raised Catholic and well educated in God's moral law, whereas the other just had the natural law written in all hearts about not stealing.  God only knows the graces that a person received or did not receive, corresponded to or did not, etc.

But especially for violations of natural law, they're guilty.

It's similar with material and formal heretics.  This has nothing to do with subjective guilt or sincerity.

Let's say a Conciliar Catholic says, "I know the Church taught papal infallibility, but I don't buy it and think they got that wrong."  Formal heretic.  Now, they could be as sincere as anything, not be culpable due to poor upbringing, etc. (to the extent that God alone knows), but they do NOT have the Catholic faith, i.e. they lack the formal motive of faith, the submission to the Church's teaching authority, and are therefore formal heretics regardless of their sincerity or culpability or lack of culpability.

Material heretics in the Conciliar Church would be the types who might say, "Well, I believe in Religious Liberty since I believe what the Church teaches."  This shows that their motivation is correct, submission to the Church's teaching authority ... but they made material errors of fact in wrongly concluding that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church.  There are some in the Conciliar Church with this mentality, who are only in material error and/or heresy and would immediately submit if a True Pope condemned Religious Liberty.  They have the correct formal motive of faith and therefore are not formal heretics.

So there can be sincere formal heretics or insincere formal heretics, and only God can really see the difference (unless they clearly manifest their thinking in the external forum).

Getting back to the heresy of Amoris Laetitia, Bergoglio teaches that you can discern whether or not you are presently sincere (in the internal forum) and if you are, then you can continue living in sin.  So, it's one thing to perhaps look back on your past life and say, "Well, at the time maybe I didn't commit a sin for these reasons."  But if you're currently examining your conscience about your current state, it's because now you KNOW DARN WELL that you're living in a state that the Church considers sinful.  So there's no more excuse about "I didn't know."  If you're discerning, then you CLEARLY know.  Really, then what Jorge heretically taught is that if you can think of some justification for your sin that can justify it, you can carry on.  But he's falsely disguised this as a consideration of the internal forum.