It's a good thing the original, pioneer trads did not think like Sean. If they did, then there would be no TLM today. They are the ones who saw the NOM for what it is and did not participate in it for any reason. Lucky thing too because otherwise, they would not have preserved it for you to boast your "take it or leave it" thinking. And you went to St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary?  

As for +ABL and other trad priests and bishops who would probably die rather than be caught saying the new "mass" for any reason, yet condone the attendance of it by others rather than wholly and vehemently condemning it for what it is, what do you call them? Consistent? Simpleminded?  Newbies, or just not well-read?

Coming from an ex trad seminarian, your defense of the New "mass" dishonors STAS - or is that what they teach there? It also dishonors the trials and efforts of all those courageous pioneer trads who wholly condemned the NOM for what it is, and handed down and preserved the True Mass - just so you could boast that there is some type of justification in compromising. +ABL called that Liberal Thinking.  

Well said, Stubborn! This is exactly what comes to mind reading SJ's pontificating.
Let's keep things in perspective. What did we fight for all these past decades? We did not fight to compromise on the New 'Mess'. It wasn't to compromise on the New Mass that so many priests were persecuted in the 1970's and 1980's! Did all these priests fight in vain? Were these confessors of the Faith 'simple-minded,' 'poorly-educated', newbies?'
For shame, SJ.

Well said, Stubborn! This is exactly what comes to mind reading SJ's pontificating.
Let's keep things in perspective. What did we fight for all these past decades? We did not fight to compromise on the New 'Mess'. It wasn't to compromise on the New Mass that so many priests were persecuted in the 1970's and 1980's! Did all these priests fight in vain? Were these confessors of the Faith 'simple-minded,' 'poorly-educated', newbies?'
For shame, SJ.

That the exceptional allowance for NOM Mass attendance for those in extreme necessity (per Archbishop Lefebvre, above) is interpreted as compromise does not speak well for the intellectual caliber (or honesty) of those making that argument.

Nor does the belief that the intrinsic evil of the NOM is moral rather than philosophical/scholastic (which would impute legions of mortal sins to Archbishop Lefebvre for permitting it).

Right now, the SSPX CI monitors are howling with laughter at the ignorance displayed, and saying to each other, “Johnson even quoted ABL, and they completely ignored and dismissed it in order to maintain their own erroneous positions.”

1) You believe the NOM is intrinsically evil in the moral sense.  But the Church cannot promulgate rites which are intrinsically evil in the moral sense.  Therefore the Church did not promugate the NOM.  You are thereforee compelled to embrace sedevacantism if you wish to maintain your opinion.

No to all.

2) I notice you are now using the term "deficient."  This is good, as it is synonomous with "evil" in the scholastic sense.  This will put you on the right path (although it contradicts what you said just above).

The novus ordo is evil because it is deficient.  We are duty bound to offer to God the highest praise we can.  If we do not, we are guilty like Cain and God will reject our offering.

3) Who is talking about validity?  You are objecting to the idea that it is ever morally permissible to attend a NOM (e.g., even in necessity).  You are doing this because you mistakenly believe the NOM is intrinsically evil in the moral sense, rather than in the scholastic/philosophic sense.  

An illegal mass, with a consistently immoral/irreverent/irreligious/anti-Catholic atmosphere is wrong to attend 100% of the time.  Intrinsically evil or not.

4) On the contrary: You had stipulated that the black Mass would be valid.  Therefore, a well-disposed communicant would receive the transmission of sanctifying grace.

 You're not distinguishing between the consecration/canon and the mass as a whole.  See below.

6) You are confusing yourself, saying firstly that the consecration is valid, but later in the same paragraph that there is no Mass.  Which is it?  In any case, all that matters is that the consecration be valid, and the communicant well-disposed.  If those two conditions are present, sanctifying grace is transmitted.

The consecration of a mass could be valid (as at a black mass), but the mass as a whole would be invalid (because it's purpose is evil).  You have to distinguish between the consecration and the mass overall.  If a priest dies right after the consecration, then mass is not complete.  The consecration is only PART of the mass.  Ergo, the novus ordo can have a valid consecration but still not be a mass, nor be pleasing to God, because the sacrifice/consecration has a deficient offertory purpose and a sacrilegious communion service.  Ergo, as a whole, the new mass is an abomination.

7) Yes.

8: "Intrinsically evil acts of the natural law??"  Aside from being off point, this implies nobody has been deceived about the evil of the NOM, which is obviously not the case.  In fact, the majority of people fall into the opposite category (i.e., they have been deceived into believing it is good).

If you talk to people who were adults during the 60s and 70s, they all knew that the new mass was novel, was different, was contrary to their catholic upbringing.  Most of them accepted it because they wanted an easier church.  Or they didn't want to be different from their neighbors.  Or they didn't want to be kicked out of the diocese and be an outcast Trad.  Only the very old and very young (who couldn't be expected to know what was going on) were fooled.  It's a fact of history that this generation embraced the novus ordo as a whole.
.
Sure people have been deceived and they are not culpable for attending this farce.  But the new mass is still wrong, even if they don't know.  Sin is an offense against God, which exists outside of our mind, so that the offense still occurs even if we are unaware.

+ABL wasn't infallible and many Trads disagreed with him on this topic.  IMO, his allowance for the new mass in extreme necessity has led the new-sspx to the philosophical problems of today.  If you allow that the novus ordo is ok sometimes, then you are saying that it could be a pleasing mass to God, in theory.  Therefore, we should all search for the good novus ordo priest who says the good novus ordo mass and join new-rome's ecuмenical party.  That's exactly what the FSSP did and what the new-sspx is doing.

There is never an "extreme necessity" to attend Mass.  Receive the Sacraments, yes.  But attend Mass?  No.  People sometimes confuse the two.  One might say that in an extreme necessity one might receive the Sacraments through the Novus Ordo, but that doesn't equate to making it OK to attend the Mass.  Either the Mass displeases God or it does not.  Period.  Now, even if it displeases God, in extremis it may be permitted to receive Holy Communion consecrated at such a Mass ... if one has no other alternative.

There is never an "extreme necessity" to attend Mass.  Receive the Sacraments, yes.  But attend Mass?  No.  People sometimes confuse the two.  One might say that in an extreme necessity one might receive the Sacraments through the Novus Ordo, but that doesn't equate to making it OK to attend the Mass.  Either the Mass displeases God or it does not.  Period.  Now, even if it displeases God, in extremis it may be permitted to receive Holy Communion consecrated at such a Mass ... if one has no other alternative.

If there's no extreme necessity to attend mass, then how can there be an extreme necessity to receive Holy Communion?  The former is obligated under the 10 Commandments/Church Law about 60 times a year; the latter only 1x a year, and only under Church law.  Seems to me that there isn't a necessity to receive Communion, when safe/moral masses are unavailable.
.
Yes, people are obviously confused and the allowance was not explained adequately by either +ABL, nor +W.  And that assumes the allowance is able to explained, which is debatable. 
.
Agree, the new mass displeases God for sure.  But there's a whole host of reasons why.  And 3 of the main ones concern validity - that of the priest, of the consecration and of the mass overall.  One would have to have 100% certainty that the priest/consecration were valid before they would even know if the Holy Eucharist is present!  And how can anyone know this?  Most people don't know about these issues, so advising them that they could go to Communion only (but not take part in the mass) is confusing.  They should just keep it simple and avoid it altogether.
.
But let's say you knew an old priest who was ordained pre-V2 and he used the most "conservative" canon prayers so you could be sure that the consecration was valid.  If you knew enough to investigate all this, then you'd also know the deficiencies with the new mass, and it's philosophical evils, and its attempt to undermine the True Faith with its protestant liturgy.  Knowing all of this, could you honestly have a guilt-free conscience in attending a fake mass in order to receive Holy Communion?  If the mass is a mockery, then Christ's sacrifice on the cross is mocked.  But one would ignore this in order to "get something" out of the service?  It makes no sense.
.
The catholics in England were martyred rather than attend an Anglican mass, one in which the only change (at first) was a philosophical one, that is, the mass was offered without the pope, in honor of King Henry VIII.  Catholics died rather than be part of this schism and blasphemy (and the Anglican communions would've been valid, let's not forget).  Yet it's ok for one to attend the new mass, which is FAR worse than the Anglican heresy, and which has FAR more blasphemies/sacrileges involved?  It makes no sense.

If there's no extreme necessity to attend mass, then how can there be an extreme necessity to receive Holy Communion?  

In danger of death.  Obligation of law, such as to attend Mass, do not bind if there's no acceptable Catholic Mass to attend.

+Lefebvre can be quoted as saying half a dozen things on any given issue over the years.  I hate the stupid fight about who's more in line with +Lefebvre.  #1) Which +Lefebvre? and #2) So what?; he wasn't God and didn't necessarily have it right on every issue.

In danger of death.  

Ok, then maybe Holy Viaticuм is the only exception...provided of course, that you knew the priest and the consecration was valid.
.

Obligation of law, such as to attend Mass, do not bind if there's no acceptable Catholic Mass to attend.

Then the same would apply to Holy Communion, if there is no acceptable mass to provide it.
.
The whole "going to a novus ordo to receive communion but not participating in the mass" has an emotional slant to it.  The idea of the question presupposes that regular Holy Communion is a necessity to save your soul.  I've heard people say such things like "I NEED to go to communion."  Ok, that's certainly a virtuous attitude, but I would also ask the question, "Is that a 100% spiritual need, or do you also have some emotional/psychological neurosis at play?"  I mean, we all need to pray and we are required to do so, but praying due to an obsessive compulsive fear of hell is not good.  
.
I've also heard people say they NEED to go to confession every week, or even twice a week (and they did not have serious sin involved).  These were all women, mind you, but the point is, their NEED was not 100% spiritual, but also psychological.  In the same way, most of the people who say the NEED to go to the new mass JUST for communion are also women.  Instead of indulging their incorrect theology and psychological whims, we should be instructing them on how to grow spiritually.  All needs, even spiritual ones, are not to be met.