Notice they use the term "normative Mass" to pretend the Mass of thirty years is somehow as venerable as the Mass of over 1500 years! Not even Vatican II could conceive of such a Protestantized novelty having any standing--the Council fathers forcefully rejected a version of it that was run by them. A few years later it became "normative" when a weak pope, after vacillating for years, was hoodwinked by a probable freemason--Bugnini--who convinced the pontiff the novus ordo would result in mass conversions of Protestants. Instead, it was the Catholics who walked away in droves and Bugnini was later exiled. A few years afterwards Paul VI was moaning about the Church's "auto-destruction"--but it was he and the liberalism that followed the Council that were the real forces for destruction.
Notice they use the term "normative Mass" to pretend the Mass of thirty years is somehow as venerable as the Mass of over 1500 years
<>Well, it is the case the normative Mass, or, if you prefer Pauline Rite, is venerable; i.e. "deserving to be venerated" as the Mass is the action of Jesus offering Himself through the Priesthood He established. If you do not venerate the Mass qua Mass, then you reveal yourself as quite confused.
Many protestants have converted and many have left the Barque of Peter. For every Lefebvre gone, we have a Scott Hahn arrived. It would have been much preferable that Lefebvre had stayed, but, Scott Hahn embraces the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine and Authority, so, that makes him, on that basis alone, preferable to the one who caused the schism.
Don't forget the words of the First Ottaviani Intervention re schismatics