CathInfo.com

Indeed, and I've come to tune out all this noise.  Among the Trad clergy, there are perhaps one or two dogmatic issues that might warrant some kind of principled division, and even those are very much mitigated by the confusion of these days ... but the other conclusions are always several logical steps removed from Catholic doctrine, and yet they assume that because one of their operating premises is de fide their conclusion is also, since their logic is undoubtedly impeccable.  That's simply not true.  During this day and age, if a priest PROFESSES the Catholic faith and does not adhere to some OBVIOUS manifest heresy that all agree is heresy ... I hold that it's licit for the faithful to assist at their Masses and receive the Sacraments.  If those priests are in error, it's between them and God.  NEVER has the Church required the faithful to be theologians in order to evaluate the validity of their theological arguments and their various positions.

I said principled divisions, because I can see some things requiring a practical division, e.g. if one group admits NO priests who are not conditionally consecrated or who they consider to otherwise have doubtful Orders, or where one group offers pre-1955 Holy Week, the other post- ... where just practically it can't work.  But they cross the line when they impose these opinions or positions on the faithful by threat of withholding Sacraments.  If, for instance, I felt that +Thuc line Holy Orders were doubtful, I might opine along those lines and perhaps warn the faithful about it ... but if they disagree you withhold the Sacraments from them?  Seriously?  On whose authority are you attempting to bind consciences under pain of effective excommunication (refusal of Sacraments, which is basically an excommunication).

Agreed! I only wish I would have known to tune out the noise before I fell prey to all of this in the beginning of my conversion. I've been mislead so many times it's not funny. 

I don't know either! But thanks for the info!

Right.  You don't know.  I don't know.  Nobody really knows since we have a vacuum of authority to decide such questions that would normally be sent to the Holy Office.  I doubt that Tucho's going to have a Catholic answer, and of course he assumes that the NOM is no sacrilege.

Given this "I don't know" situations, any reasonable need for the Sacraments justifies assisting at such Masses.  If they did have Mass on a NO altar that's desecrated, they in fact do so not really THINKING it's desecrated, so there's no intention to desecrate, and since it's really a matter of my opinion.  Given how I read Canon Law, an Ordinary could for legitimate reason dispense from some of these canonical requirements, so given the state of emergency and the confusion ... I'd say it's licit to assist even if you're not sure, along the lines of St. Alphonsus' probabilism (or semi-probabilism) approach the moral theology, where you don't have to be completely paralyzed due to uncertainty.