No. I never claimed the NO sacrament was not valid, just that in my experience it was not as efficacious. There is more to the sacrament than just validity.
The grace comes from the sacrament ex opere operato. I'm sorry, but the Novus Ordo sacrament cannot be less effective. It does not matter how it feels or appears to anyone. Again, however, the counsel might leave much to be desired. On this we might agree. But the sacrament less efficacious? It cannot be.
And yet I'm telling you it was. As I explained (and you yet again ignored), we only receive grace through the sacraments to the extent we are properly disposed. The whole orientation of my NO parish was such that it worked against forming the proper penitential disposition. The SSPX orientation serves to bolster and strengthen my disposition. Thus I was much more open to the grace of the sacrament. This is verifiable from the fruits. My spiritual life and aversion to the sins I confessed grew considerably after I begun confessing to an SSPX priest. With the NO confessions, my resolutions were weaker and I much more easily fell into the same sin.
Pascendi, I once was where you are now. Believing I had to suffer all sorts of horrid abuses and nonsense out of an obligation to be "obedient to Rome". The irony is that most of these NO parishes are less "obedient to Rome" than the SSPX Chapels! We must work out our salvation through dedicated prayer and devotion and the sacraments. The NO sacraments in my diocese offer nothing but an obstacle to the true Faith. Frequent attendance there leads to a visible diminution in spiritual fervor and also to an indifferentist, Modernist mindset over time. We must make use of whatever spiritual goods are available in this crisis in order to save our souls. If the local Bishop is unlawfully denying a common good of the Church to you, you have the right to obtain those goods outside the Diocesan structure.
I notice in another thread you state you have been to SSPX Masses in the past and you do counsel people to attend SSPX Masses if they like. This is good as you do understand Rome's current position is not opposed to Mass attendance.
However, I think you are limiting yourself, as I once did, to an undeclared and unofficial mindset, fostered by Rome's inaction, as to what is allowable and what is not concerning the SSPX's other sacraments. Rome has never officially declared SSPX confessions invalid and has never stated that jurisdiction is not supplied. Since the law of supplied jurisdiction applies to the factual situations of SSPX priests through, not just one, but various Canons, on their face, this is the mind of the Church until the Supreme legislator rules otherwise.
This mindset has been shown already by Rome's recording of SSPX marriages in diocesan records in Africa without sanation and no sanation or admonition for Campos faithful to give general confessions. In addition a friend of mine who went over to the FSSP after the '88 consecrations attended a conference with the new FSSP priest (formerly SSPX). Someone in the audience asked the question as to what Rome's position was on their previous confessions with the SSPX and if they would have to reconfess all of those sins. The FSSP priest said that Rome's position was that they were valid and there was no need to reconfess.
Pascendi, perhaps, in time, you will come to realize, like I did that Rome recognizes the truth on this matter. They recognize both that the Abp. was never really excommunicated under Canon Law and that jurisdiction is supplied for the Society's sacraments. They know these things just as Rome knew for 40 years that the TLM was never abrogated, but never said so officially. They simply leave the unofficial impression, the "stigma" out there and do nothing to correct it.
Little by little you see the truth leaking out. First, Mass attendance at SSPX chapels was strictly forbidden and even carried with it a possible automatic excommunication! And the Society was then considered most definitely in schism. Then later on, they declared the Society wasn't really in "formal schism". Rather they were in "imperfect communion". Then later it was actually ok to attend their Masses (previously forbidden) and they even were declared ok to fulfill one's Sunday obligation!
Compare to the following situation. First the TLM was banned, considered replaced. The NO Mass was mandatory. Then later a commission decided the TLM was never forbidden. Then came the "indult" of 84. Then the wider "indult" of 88. Then finally 20 years later the admission....the TLM was never abrogated all along!
The same principles are at work here. The bottom line is that you cannot point to one official legislative pronouncement by Rome that SSPX priests do not have supplied jurisdiction. Rome is silent on purpose. Because they know the SSPX sacraments are valid (as I showed with the instructions they gave Gabon, no sanation for campos or SSPX faithful who switched to the FSSP, etc.)
So believe what you will personally as to the validity of SSPX confessions and marriages but do not try to force your views on others. Especially when the Church has not made an official declaration on the matter. To do so reeks of hubris, as echoed in your unsolicited admonitions to your Traditional brothers on what they must do to be saved.
You have no control how well other people believe and live the Catholic Faith. All that you have control over is whether you do well. These people are not insurmountable obstacles. They have to be overcome by you, and me, and everyone else.
I have indeed overcome them quite well. I now go to a Catholic church and have eliminated the problem entirely. They no longer bother me in the least! ;)
Could it be the case that doubt about the validity of Novus Ordo ordinations is at the root of this matter for you? I don't wish to read you incorrectly, but it seems to be taking this turn.
No, the heart of the matter is contained in the article I posted, entitled, " Can a traditional Catholic go to confession to a Novus Ordo priest?" which you have no doubt not read.