Because the intent was changed to be specifically not Catholic when they removed 'the stumbling blocks for the separated brethren' (that is to say, Catholic doctrine/dogmas).

I invite you to read the Ottaviani Intervention.  Here's one statement, among countless, from Chapter III, Part I:

1. Ultimate purpose. The ultimate purpose of the Mass is the sacrifice of praise rendered to the Most Holy Trinity. This end conforms to the primary purpose of the Incarnation, explicitly enunciated by Christ Himself: "Coming into the world he saith: sacrifice and oblation thou wouldst not, but a body thou hast fitted me." (9)

In the Novus Ordo, this purpose has disappeared:

Having removed the keystone, the reformers had to put up scaffolding. Having suppressed the real purposes of the Mass, they had to substitute fictitious purposes of their own. This forced them to introduce actions stressing the union between priest and faithful, or among the faithful themselves-----and led to the ridiculous attempt to superimpose offerings for the poor and for the Church on the offering of the host to be immolated.


Because Catholic teaching dictates that Form, Matter and Intent are required, and the intent is now clearly not Catholic - I'll stick with Not Valid.

1) Greatly diminished, but not completely useless.  The SSPX can still be a stepping stone to the Resistance (i.e., pre-1992 SSPX).

2) Can you please define "partial" and "full" betrayal?

3) Legacies (e.g., Jaidhofer Foundation).

I remember having this discussion about transubstantiation in the seminary when we were studying miracles in apologetics.

In the apologetic sense, a miracle must be an observable fact, a factum sensibile, and so in this sense, transubstantiation is not a miracle. You could say God is just respecting the law that He has established with transubstantiation, but in a true miracle He is acting beyond the established order of nature, the MOTS being a case in point!

So I believe Fr Hewko had a valid concern in this matter, a concern shared at the time by the overwhelming majority of those in the Resistance, even the priests, and I believe the onus was on Bishop Williamson to explain just how God could work such a miracle without somehow giving the divine seal of approval to the NOM and the conciliar establishment.

I was certainly shocked at the time, and I remember a disgruntled and discouraged fellow resistant, who has since returned to the SSPX, remonstrating "we don't need new ideas, we just need to continue in the same line of Mgr Lefebvre!". Most of us felt the same way, it didn't seem opportune. The priests who came our way went into damage control...

But God's ways are not our ways. Bishop Williamson has, I believe, given a plausible explanation and so I withhold judgement. It came at a time when the Resistance was losing many souls to sedevacantism, and I think the good bishop was trying to impress upon us that, in spite of the fact that Tradition is the truth, nonetheless, the great majority of Catholics in the world today find themselves, often through no fault of their own, trapped in the conciliar mess, and God does not abandon His sheep. That is not to say of course that most souls in the conciliar mess are Catholic, that is altogether a different proposition!

The fault of Frs Hewko and Pfeiffer was rather, in my opinion, the inordinate and unjustified nature of their attack. One wonders in hindsight if Fr Hewko would have taken it so far without Fr P's encouragement, and we all know now the alterior motives behind that. What a wonderful thing for Fr Hewko and his followers if he could find the humility to reconcile with Bishop Williamson.

MOTS, it is the intention of the priest consecrating that is relevant to the validity of the sacrament/sacrifice, not the intention of the revolutionaries involved in the reform.