From Sean....

2) Doubt exists because of the impossibility of ascertaining the satisfaction of the 4 elements necessary for a valid sacrament.

See this article from Fr. Peter Scott in 2007, which expresses my opinion EXACTLY:

http://sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained

and he continues two pages later...........

Is that last (bolded) line sinking in?

It directly contradicts Fr. Scott (who worries that the new priests, not knowing whether they are celebrating a sacrifice or a meal, may not have the right intention)......

Fr. Scott's position seems very close to forming the same "negative doubt" he previously stated was inadmissible ("I wonder if the priest has the proper intention?  After all, we can no longer deduce it by external utterances.).  According to Billot, that concern is completely beside the point.

And to recall the Archbishop:

These young priests will not have the intention of doing that which the Church does, for they will not have been taught that the Mass is a true sacrifice. They will not have the intention of offering a sacrifice. They will have the intention of celebrating a Eucharist, a sharing, a communion, a memorial, all of which has nothing to do with faith in the Sacrifice of the Mass. Hence from this moment, inasmuch as these deformed priests no longer have the intention of doing what the Church does, their Masses will obviously be more and more invalid."

So which is it Sean? Do you agree with Fr. Scott or not? Do you disagree with the Archbishop? You are entitled to disagree with them, but I would prefer that you be honest about it if you do.

Here is what Fr. Scott says on  a negative doubt

 "A negative doubt is a doubt that is not based upon any reason"

But what you're missing here Sean is that THERE IS A REASON to doubt the INTENTION TO DO WHAT THE CHURCH DOES.

Just some more on what doubt is... From the Catholic Encyclopedia.

"Doubt is either positive or negative. In the former case, the evidence for and against is so equally balanced as to render decision impossible; in the latter, the doubt arises from the absence of sufficient evidence on either side."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05141a.htm

In our case it is the doubt that the priest intends to do what the Church intends. NOT his faith.

It is not a negative doubt, because there is good reason, as explained by the Archbishop to doubt that they are doing what the Church does.

Sean, it seems that whoever might be at variance with your opinions is proclaimed to be wrong or stupid. Your whole argument is based upon the presumption that all four element are most likely present in the Novus Ordo.   But that is not the point or even a true fact.
A layperson cannot know with any degree of certainty that any given priest is validly ordained or if his intention is the same as the Church. If his intentions are those of the conciliar church (which they more than likely are), then we have doubt.
 The Church does not operate based upon accepting any level of uncertainty, when it is a sacramental matter. All four do not have to be in doubt, only one or maybe. The fact is we don't know.
My advice is not bad as it defers to the safer course as the Church requires.  I submit that it is Bishop Williamson's and the SSPX's opinion of the New Mass that is dangerous as evidenced by the N.Y affair and subsequent E.C.s by allowing an unskilled layperson to decide for themselves based upon a host of elastic subjective considerations whether to endanger their souls and attend a new order service.

:applause:

Archbishop Lefebvre - January 13, 1983
 
“The Mass, what do you think of the Mass? ... I have repeated it a hundred times. - Invalid, not valid? … I think that if it is said with all the conditions required for validity, the intention, it is likely valid. In the translations, I did not say it was invalid. Someone said to me today: - It seems that you said that all the translations made the Mass invalid! I never said a thing like that, never. I said that it gave a doubt to the validity, a doubt, it is true. But listen, I am not a superpope, so I cannot decide things that will maybe be decided by a Pope in four centuries! Why in four centuries? Well the Anglican ordinations, it was Pope Leo XIII who decided that they were not valid. And for how long have there been Anglicans ordained in four centuries? And the Pope waited four centuries to say publicly that these ordinations are invalid. So do not ask me to decide all at once: - That is invalid, it is surely invalid. I cannot decide everything! I think it is, because of the assertion of St. Thomas who says that if one changes the formula of the Precious Blood, if the words which are maybe not necessary for the validity but change the sense of the phrase Hic is calix sanguinis mei novi et eterni testamenti, if one changes the sense of the Blood, the conception that one has of the redemptive Blood, then that makes the Mass invalid. Does changing the term for all instead of for many even change the meaning of the redemptive Blood of Our Lord? It is possible, because the application of this Blood is not for all, it is for many. It is only the application; it is not the essential, if you will, of the Redemption. So I cannot decide absolutely, these are things that are too delicate to change. I think that it is really necessary for a pope to decide, who has the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to say: - All those Masses were invalid. It is possible maybe that in 50 or 100 years, a solemn declaration will say: - Those Masses were invalid. I do not know, but do not make me say that all those Masses are invalid. There are many that are invalid, more and more are invalid, it is true because the intention of the young priests now is more and more wrong, is more and more false. They no longer want to do what the Church does. So obviously the Masses become more and more invalid. Then the matter also, they change the matter ...”
 

“La messe, qu’est-ce que vous pensez de la messe ?… Je l’ai répété cent fois. – Invalide, pas invalide ?… Je pense que si elle est dite avec toutes les conditions requises pour la validité, l’intention, elle est vraisemblablement valide. Dans les traductions, je n’ai pas dit qu’elle était invalide. Quelqu’un m’a dit aujourd’hui : - Il paraît que vous avez dit que toutes les traductions rendaient la messe invalide ! Je n’ai jamais dit une chose comme cela, jamais. J’ai dit que ça donnait un doute sur la validité, un doute, c’est vrai. Mais écoutez, je ne suis pas justement un super-pape, alors moi je ne peux pas trancher des choses qui seront peut-être tranchées par le pape dans quatre siècles ! Pourquoi dans quatre siècles ? Et bien, les ordinations anglicanes, c’est le Pape Léon XIII qui a tranché qu’elles n’étaient pas valides. Et depuis combien de temps il y a eu des anglicans ordonnés en quatre siècles ? Et le pape a attendu quatre siècles pour dire publiquement que ces ordinations sont invalides. Alors ne me demandez pas à moi de décider tout à coup : - Ça c’est invalide, c’est sûrement invalide. Je ne peux pas tout décider ! Je pense qu’il y a, à cause de l’assertion de Saint Thomas qui dit que si on change la formule du Précieux Sang, si les mots qui ne sont peut-être pas nécessaires pour la validité mais changent le sens de l’expression Hic est calix sanguinis mei novi et eterni testamenti, si on change le sens du Sang, la conception qu’on a du Sang rédempteur, alors ça rend invalide la messe. Est-ce que de changer le terme pour tous au lieu de pour beaucoup, est-ce que ça change la signification même du Sang rédempteur de Notre-Seigneur ? C’est possible, parce que l’application de ce Sang n’est pas pour tous, elle est pour beaucoup. Ce n’est que l’application, ce n’est pas l’essentiel, si on veut, de la Rédemption. Alors moi, je ne peux pas trancher absolument, ce sont des choses qui sont trop délicates à changer. Je pense qu’il faut vraiment pour cela un pape qui tranche, qui ait lui l’inspiration du Saint-Esprit pour dire : - Toutes ces messes-là étaient invalides. C’est possible peut-être que dans 50 ans, 100 ans, une déclaration solennelle dise : - Ces messes-là étaient invalides. Je n’en sais rien, mais ne me faites pas dire à moi que toutes ces messes-là sont invalides. Il y en a beaucoup d’invalides, de plus en plus d’invalides, c’est vrai parce que l’intention des jeunes prêtres maintenant est de plus en plus mauvaise, est de plus en plus fausse. Ils ne veulent plus faire ce que fait l’Eglise. Alors évidemment les messes deviennent de plus en plus invalides. Ensuite la matière aussi, on change la matière…”
 
 
 
 

The part you underlined towards the top about Archbishop Lefebvre expressing a doubt about the validity of the NOM is prefaced by the words, “In the translations...”

In other words, he is not speaking of doubt in the NOM as promulgated.

Tune in to a new thread for a new prediction...

Starting a new thread again to run away from this umpteenth one you started and are slammed down again for obtuse views?  Everything you start you run away from.

Ignoramus and Flats:

You are model CI members, and I have no doubt at all that you two wackos will have a long, popular membership here.

As much as I respect +ABL, he was not a theologian, and nowhere close to the level of +Ottaviani and the others who studied the ‘perfect’ new mass and still found so many deficiencies that they characterized it as a protestantized departure from the catholic understanding of the mass, as taught by Trent.  

The countless ‘conservative’ novus ordo-ites who factlessly defend the novus ordo and its “abuses” (ie sacrileges) do so under the naive idea that the “true, pure” novus ordo is pleasing to God.  “If only the REAL novus ordo was used, like Paul VI wanted, then the Church’s problems would be fixed”, they say. And they wait for this nirvana-like utopia to one day happen, because they haven’t faced reality - that is, the novus ordo is not pure, will never be perfect and is inherently flawed.  

+Ottaviani and company studied the “pure, utopian” new mass and came away disgusted by its anti-catholic errors.  They studied the NOM in its “perfect” form, without any abuses/sacrileges, without its full Masonic/humanistic liturgy in place, before the widespread blasphemy of communion in the hand and all the other liturgical mayhem which was added into the Martin Luther-inspired mockery of Christ’s sacrifice of the cross.

It matters not if +Ottaviani changed his mind 100% about his critical study, all that matters are facts.  What he and his fellow theologians wrote about the evils of this new liturgy is still true, it’s problems still exist (and are now worse), it’s theology is still defunct, deficient and communistically deplorable.  

Nothing in +Ottaviani’s ‘change of heart’ letter challenges his previous theological assertions, nor does it change the reality that the NOM is a striking departure from Trent and 2,000 years of consistent catholic teaching on the purpose, goal and beauty of the Mass - which many V2 theologians readily, proudly and openly admit.

The part you underlined towards the top about Archbishop Lefebvre expressing a doubt about the validity of the NOM is prefaced by the words, “In the translations...”

In other words, he is not speaking of doubt in the NOM as promulgated.

Tune in to a new thread for a new prediction...

Nonetheless, there were/are a lot of "translated" Masses, so that makes a lot of doubtfully valid Masses.