The new mass is valid but illicit. That's what +ABL taught, and it makes sense to me. It's a schismatic mass. That doesn't mean that the masses aren't valid.

This is wrong. The Archbishop thought that most Masses in the Novus Ordo were invalid and there are plenty of quotes to back this up. I've pointed this out to you before. He indeed said that all the Novus Ordo masses were now doubtful, and that was in 1988. What do you think he would say today when there are even fewer bishops ordained in the Traditional Roman rite?

Maybe you can pretend like you can continue to ignore me, but you would show that you are motivated by self-interests and not Truth if you ignore the Dominicans of Avrillé (of whom you have quoted before).

http://www.dominicansavrille.us/questionable-priestly-ordinations-in-the-conciliar-church/

Is the entire Novus Ordo church hierarchy mentally ill?

It is most probably the case. The Church has seen this before to a similar degree with the Arian heresy. There is plenty of evidence that we are living in the times of the Great Apostasy and clerics on all sides point this out. At what point in the Great Apostasy is up for debate.

You should also remember that the Latin Church is but one Church of the Catholic Church. There are many other Churches (sui juris) that make up the Catholic Church. Some of them are modernist and some are far from it from what I have seen. It makes sense that the seed of the Faith is the blood of martyrs and those Churches that were severely persecuted by either Communists or Islamists have maintained the True Faith. Over here in the western world, we've had a comfortable ride. Devout Catholics pray for material goods in Latin churches while in other lands they are praying to keep their necks.

Firstly, I am neither a priest in the conciliar church nor in the traditional church (to use your terminology).

Secondly, my concerns are related to any issues concerning the Mass period (whether it be the Latin Mass or Novus Ordo Mass) because, as we all know, the Mass is the most important religious activity in Catholicism. In my opinion, we as Catholics should be focused on any and all aspects of what is considered a "mass."

Thirdly, can you please explain to me how the current Vicar of Christ on Earth is "mentally ill" along with all of the Novus Ordo cardinals in Rome and the rest of the Novus Ordo Church hierarchy?

Have you ever heard of the term, "modernism?" Do you know what it is?

The new mass is valid but illicit. That's what +ABL taught, and it makes sense to me. It's a schismatic mass. That doesn't mean that the masses aren't valid. The Eastern Orthodox masses are valid too. But illicit.

I don't condemn people for attending the New Mass, even though that's what Resistance-type trads often do. However, the new mass has severe flaws. It was not actually promulgated according to the accepted rules of the Church (the conciliar church is another matter). The new mass is a sad made-up thing, meant to appease protestants and lukewarm Catholics by watering down the liturgy and making it all in the vernacular, so that everything that is said at the altar is understood by the faithful, and also so that they can "participate."

Masses in the Catholic Church are not supposed to be invented by a committee, as the new mass was. That's not how our religion has ever worked. It is, however, how the conciliar church works. The conciliar church has its new institutions: new code of canon law, new liturgy, new formula for canonizing supposed saints. You get the drift.

We do not have to adhere to the New Church as far as it has left the timeless traditions and teachings of the Popes before the Council. There is not much of an opportunity to obey good rules that the conciliar Popes have instituted, and I can't really think of what those might be. We are obliged to maintain our Catholic faith and we can reject novelties such as the new mass. That doesn't mean that we have to reject those who attend the new mass, or that we reject the pope. Just because we distance ourselves from a mentality ill father, this doesn't mean that he isn't still our father.

You say the mass is valid but illicit because that's what +ABL taught and it makes sense to you.  Ok.  I was taught the same thing.  But where does liceity come from? Answer: The hierarchy/Pope/Church.  So, upon reexamination two things stand out: Saying the mass is illicit means
1. We place trust in +ABL and not the Pope (at least 2 Popes, up to 6 or 7). 
2. That the Popes made the mistake pretending liceity, vs. +ABL's assessment. 
3. That, at least in practice, the Church has also made a mistake.
The Pope was given the greater authority and +ABL not. Our consciences then say, "its about the Faith" so we believe +ABL.  Yea, but we don't have to deny that +ABL saved the Latin Mass if we say his position on liceity was off, because we cannot be absolutely sure his position on liceity is correct. The good Archbishop is not infallible.  However, saying +ABL's position on liceity is true, we automatically deny the Popes.  Not good. I think we can wonder about liceity, even validity, but we can't know. Taking this position does not deny that moderns made their way in and jacked things up--they did. But we also don't have to discard Popes, or their God-given authority in order to know how to eliminate sin, do penance and pray, trust Christ's Mercy etc, things that will gain us heaven. This position continues to recognize that the most recent Popes were infected with modernism. But, that's on them and those that run with it. Ultimately, there is a safeguard that teaches the Pope/Church are infallible. Why does that suddenly no longer apply? Because we know better? The Church also teaches, what is bound on earth is bound in heaven. In order for these protections to remain true, it appears to me at least, that the Church was stretched to Her limits, not beyond.  Evil prelates simply capitalized on it better than Catholics resisted because Catholics ran away, despaired, divided, separated but did not come together in prayer. <----That's the problem. 
From this position, the NO very well could have been permitted by God for reasons we don't understand.  Was it a good thing?  I'm tempted to say no, but have to ask: Is it bringing people into the Church?  I'd say yes, which is definitely a good thing because God can reach those inside the Church by their reception of the Holy Eucharist, and ultimately correct them, yes, even root out the modernism they imbibe! As dangerous as modernism is, it is not more powerful than Jesus Christ. Isn't God doing the same for traditionals?  We can be sure God does not do the same for those outside the Church. This position doesn't have to automatically accept even one iota of modernism, it merely submits, specifically, to what it does not have the authority to deny. This position brings hope too, because while our Church is in mortal battle, it is edifying to realize that many more souls who reside within the confines of our Church, the hope for salvation, if they permit Jesus to guide them in spite of the lies and heresies that surround them, and if we pray for them, loving them as our own body.               

You say the mass is valid but illicit because that's what +ABL taught and it makes sense to you.  Ok.  I was taught the same thing.  But where does liceity come from? Answer: The hierarchy/Pope/Church.  So, upon reexamination two things stand out: Saying the mass is illicit means
1. We place trust in +ABL and not the Pope (at least 2 Popes, up to 6 or 7).  
2. That the Popes made the mistake pretending liceity, vs. +ABL's assessment.  
3. That, at least in practice, the Church has also made a mistake.
The Pope was given the greater authority and +ABL not. Our consciences then say, "its about the Faith" so we believe +ABL.  Yea, but we don't have to deny that +ABL saved the Latin Mass if we say his position on liceity was off, because we cannot be absolutely sure his position on liceity is correct. The good Archbishop is not infallible.  However, saying +ABL's position on liceity is true, we automatically deny the Popes.  Not good. I think we can wonder about liceity, even validity, but we can't know. Taking this position does not deny that moderns made their way in and jacked things up--they did. But we also don't have to discard Popes, or their God-given authority in order to know how to eliminate sin, do penance and pray, trust Christ's Mercy etc, things that will gain us heaven. This position continues to recognize that the most recent Popes were infected with modernism. But, that's on them and those that run with it. Ultimately, there is a safeguard that teaches the Pope/Church are infallible. Why does that suddenly no longer apply? Because we know better? The Church also teaches, what is bound on earth is bound in heaven. In order for these protections to remain true, it appears to me at least, that the Church was stretched to Her limits, not beyond.  Evil prelates simply capitalized on it better than Catholics resisted because Catholics ran away, despaired, divided, separated but did not come together in prayer. <----That's the problem.  
From this position, the NO very well could have been permitted by God for reasons we don't understand.  Was it a good thing?  I'm tempted to say no, but have to ask: Is it bringing people into the Church?  I'd say yes, which is definitely a good thing because God can reach those inside the Church by their reception of the Holy Eucharist, and ultimately correct them, yes, even root out the modernism they imbibe! As dangerous as modernism is, it is not more powerful than Jesus Christ. Isn't God doing the same for traditionals?  We can be sure God does not do the same for those outside the Church. This position doesn't have to automatically accept even one iota of modernism, it merely submits, specifically, to what it does not have the authority to deny. This position brings hope too, because while our Church is in mortal battle, it is edifying to realize that many more souls who reside within the confines of our Church, the hope for salvation, if they permit Jesus to guide them in spite of the lies and heresies that surround them, and if we pray for them, loving them as our own body.              

Yes, the new mass could have been permitted by God, by His permissive will. Just as the horrible council was allowed, and the bad conciliar popes. That's one reason why I could never be a sede. God has allowed these things to happen for a reason. We still have to keep our faith, and if possible, our charity. 

Thumbs up is mine, Meg.

Thanks!  :)

I apologize and I agree with you that the Resistance will unfortunately drift toward sedevacantism sooner or later.

It is indeed unfortunate.