CathInfo.com

Twists and turns; keep with the context. I said only the Church, when it comes to an official Rite itself, can declare upon a positive doubt. However, and I made this clear too, if individual abuses or lapses occur during this Rite - outside of this Rite - then a case for a positive doubt could be made - and presented to the proper authorities. 

No, not how it works.

With to Pope Pius XII, I only have your word that the New Rite does not measure up to what this Holy father stipulated.

  Don't be lazy.  Go look it up.

Both the Church itself and the OLD leadership of the SSPX have told me that the New Rite - in its original Latin form - does measure up.

IF the ordination was done by a true bishop, then the new rite of ordination MIGHT be ok.  But ALL THE OLD RITE BISHOPS ARE DEAD (except in Tradition).

No, this is totally false. So, the Church tells us water must be the matter of baptism, and if someone baptizes using apple juice instead, we must consider the baptism as certainly valid until a pope tells us it's not? 

I see you dodged this comment, because it destroys your argument.

.
The new rite of holy orders is not an official rite because it goes against what the Church taught in the early 1940s. The Church cannot contradict herself; therefore the new rite cannot come from the Church.

This is irrelevant because the doubt in the new rite does not arise from individual abuses but from the official text itself.

A simple Google search will show you that the form of the new rite is different from what Pius XII decreed in the early 1940s. With regard to the words for ordaining a priest, the word "ut" was removed from the formula of Pius XII. With regard to the words of consecrating a bishop, the words that Pius XII gave were deleted entirely and re-written with something completely different.

But it did come from the Church. And the 'OLD' SSPX, including Archbishop Lefebvre, accepted this rite - at least in the original Latin - as valid and without positive doubt. It is certainly a stripped down version but the three main elements exist. The main argument being made on this thread is that the SSPX have turned modernist because they do not re-ordain every NO priest that either joins them or works with them. This is a falsehood. The SSPX has always maintained this cautious policy of accepting the New Ordination Rite unless a positive doubt (an abuse or lapse) arises from an ordination done with a faulty English translation etc. If you choose to answer to no-one accept the Diamond Brothers, that's your affair. But don't suggest that your open rebellion against any Catholic authority, is caused by the SSPX going soft.

The Sedevacantist Diamond Brothers from which all this nonsense arises from, are renowned for splitting hairs and twisting things to fit their own private narrative. Yet again, they have done so here. They claim that each and every word must be the same and in exactly the same order. They claim that because the New Rite is worded slightly different, it is thus invalid. But what they seem to ignore, is that the meaning and the sense of it, is exactly the same. It means the same thing. So to say that "oh it s missing the word 'ut'" actually means nothing in itself because the sentence was re-ordered to mean the same without having to use it.  They are very black and white people who cannot make distinctions. I stress again. The Church, Archbishop Lefebrve and even his Lordship Bishop Williamson accepted the New Ordination Rite, in its original form, as valid.