The NOM is evil (in the scholastic/philosophical, not moral sense) for what it does not contain.

Because “what the Church does” is confects a sacrament, which is precisely what such a priest would intend, in order to carry out his desecration.

"It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,- or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circuмstances, times, and places…. Wherefore, holy Mother Church, knowing this her authority in the administration of the sacraments, although the use of both species has,- from the beginning of the Christian religion, not been infrequent, yet, in progress of time, that custom having been already very widely changed,- she, induced by weighty and just reasons,- has approved of this custom of communicating under one species, and decreed that it was to be held as a law; which it is not lawful to reprobate, or to change at pleasure, without the authority of the Church itself."

Well.. it is the Church Herself which has all power as regards the dispensation of all the Sacraments, including that of the Eucharist, as long as the substance remains untouched.

So it is the Church Herself which gets to decide upon the validity of liturgical rites; and not Sean Johnson.

If Paul VI is a legitimate pope of the Catholic Church, then the NOM is equally pleasing to God, despite all the horrific abuses done in particular parishes. I have a reason to suspect that Paul VI was not a legitimate pope though, but a true impostor and therefore, the NOM would be an invalid rite simply for not having the approbation of a legitimate pope, instead of other superficial reasons.

The Council of Trent:
I realize that to say that the R&R position is heretical is no longer permitted in this forum; but I do not know the new rules concerning sedevacantism discussions in this board.

The last thread I participated on the sedevacantism subject with had more than 45 K views, all my hundreds of posts simply got deleted all of a sudden, with no explanation whatsoever. There were great sources on that thread which now are forever gone.

I would appreciate if Matthew let me know why my posts are simply being deleted with no warning. I am able to follow the rules of a particular forum once they are explained to me.

(I hope this post don't get deleted) I never know anymore.

Cantatella-

Yes, the Church defined how a valid sacrament is confected (“ex opere operato”) at Trent, and it is I who am the one faithful to that teaching by applying it to the NOM (or black Mass), and not you (who would accept/apply that theology in some cases, and not in others).

When you can show a defect in the validity of the minister, a contrary intention to confect a sacrament, a mutation in the sacramental form, or the presence of invalidating matter, we can talk.

But if all those are present, the sacrament is valid (regardless of context).

Period.

Any other contention is an heretical violation of Trent.

There are several responses one could make to this objection:

For example, some people argue that the NOM was never legally promulgated, and consequently is not a secondary object of infallibility.  

People espousing this view (which is not mine, by the way) claim to find support in Summorum Pontificuм’s admission that the TLM was never abrogated (and consequently, the NOM -evil or not- was never compulsory).

Others like Archbishop Lefebvre argue that not in each and every case are the universal disciplinary laws of the Church secondary objects of infallibility.  

I believe Samuel has a translated Ecône spiritual conference on his blog in which ABL lays out this argument.

I agree with +Lefebvre:

If the suggestion that a Pope could promulgate an evil rite of Mass (legitimately or illegitimately) represents an affront to indefectibility, then the suggestion that the Mass can altogether vanish and cease to be offered is an even greater affront.

Yet that is precisely how some reknowned exegetes interpret Daniel, and the very assertion made by a Doctor of the Church (eg., St Alphonsus) and several saints, and nobody ever suggested their positions were at odds with indefectibility.

Good points. Just out of interest, why in your opinion did Paul VI promulgate the new mass? Did he know it'd be an evil rite or was he just a useful idiot liberal?