You make fun,but yes,Faith tells us,they would never had said anything other then what they were Ordained to say-even Padre Pio- was "asked" to say the New service...He refused !
The Mass is said on an altar..not a table
The True Mass never changes form parish to parish throughout the entire universw it will forever remani the SAME....not so with the New service everywhere different as if it is forgotten the word"Universal".
So Yes, I say confidently, they would not say such a service if they lived today..nor would Pope St. Pius X who condemded all modernism. Ten thousand Traditionalists are standing firm for a reason...they hold to the Faith of the Old Way..never changing..not inviting Moderism..not tossing out the confessional or the crucifixes or the rosary,or the beauty of the altar ect...Pope Benedict XVI knows..he saw what is was and what it is now...Tell me how long does your priest spend in the confessional...can he out do St. John Vianney who knew the importance of the immmortal soul!
In other words, if the sspx gives you an annulment and Williamson marries you to Ernst Zundel and you go to Confession after painting a swastika on a Synagogue, your Confession will be invalid.
You see, a lot of what goes on in the "average" parish was not mandated even by the hijacked "reforms" that followed the council and certainly not by the Council. The council did not mandate vernacular Mass--but authorized bishops to decide how much vernacular to permit and bishops then went whole hog, a possibility the council fathers laughed at because they could not imagine it happening. The freestanding altar was not mandated by the council and was not even required by post-council reforms. The kiss of peace shared among congregants, even among altar servers, remains optional in the Novus Ordo even though a lot of parishes have (wrongly) made it a centerpiece of their Sunday worship. I could go on and on. Much of what you rail against was the result of false, dishonest "implementation" of the council. Your quarrel is not with Vatican II but with what happened afterward. You are guilty of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: you wrongly claim that if Z happened after A, then it must have happened because of of A. But since more than "A" happened before "Z" happened, the cause of "Z" could be "B" or "Y" or "G." What you blame on Vatican II is in fact the result of perfidy by post-Vatican II leaders. Ratzinger pointed this out in 1985 and slowly things are being turned around--which is the clear prove that this Church, led by Pau VI and John Paul II and now Benedict XVI is the true Church of Christ and has not fallen into apostasy. But you will not face up to this honestly--you would rather abandon the Church in schism than admit that you misjudged the scope and cause of the very bad things that happened after Vatican II.
I could understand your position if it were 1975 right now. I still would have told you then not to blame it on Vatican II but I could understand why you mistakenly did so then. But after 1985, after 1988 after 1993 after 2005, there is no excuse for not recognizing that Christ continues to guide his church through Benedict XVI and that the perfidious "reforms" of the liturgy (all matters of discipline, not doctrine--the Church's leader can and do err in matters of discipline, even popes--and they did do so after Vatican II--I believe it was an error of discipline for Paul VI to have approved, despite warnings, the Novus Ordo--but that is a matter of discipline, not of doctrine and Paul VI did not err in any way whatsoever in doctrine, nor did Vatican II) are being corrected.
You refuse to admit this because it would require humbly admitting your leaders (perhaps you yourself--if you were around in 1975) misjudged what was happening in 1975. I could understand why they did so then, though faith in the claims the Catholic Church makes about herself and the Successor of Peter should have kept them from falling into that error even in 1975. But to persist in that error of judgment about Vatican II and the often false "reforms" that followed it, to persist in that error in 2005 will lead you straight out of the Church of Christ into falsehood, error and Protestantism. The things you wrote in the post to which I am replying are word-for-word the error of the "primitivist" Protestants who insisted that they held on to the "ancient" true church against the recent modernist errors of the Pope at Rome. I grew up with this "primitivism."
Before God I urge you to reconsider. You have become a Protestant in your thinking. In this path lies destruction for you and all you hold dear.