#2) if you say there is, then you are alleging that +Lefebvre is a heretic and schismatic.  But you absolutely dodge this problem like Superman avoids kryptonite.

Here's the elephant in the room that XavierSem absolutely refuses to touch.

Since you like syllogisms (although you can't properly construct one):

Major 1:  It is dogmatic fact that the V2 papal claimants have been legitimate popes.
Major 2:  It is heresy to deny or even to positively doubt a dogma or dogmatic fact.
Minor:  But Archbishop Lefebvre doubted the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants and publicly articulated these doubts.
Conclusion:  Archbishop Lefebvre was a heretic.

I reject the conclusion because I reject Major 1.

Why do I reject Major 1?

Major:  Universal Acceptance of a pope makes his legitimacy known as dogmatic fact.
Minor:  V2 papal claimants enjoy Universal Acceptance.
Conclusion:  The legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants is  dogmatic fact.

I reject the Minor.

Instead of arguing with us regarding whether or not the minor is true, you keep wasting everyone's time by re-asserting the major.  You waste our time because we do not reject the major.  In thinking you prove your point by simply re-asserting the major, you are begging the question that the rest of the argument (i.e. the Minor and therefore the Conclusion) is correct and true.

There is no way to be sure about visibility and jurisdiction.  One thing that is clear to me is that vatican ii contains serious error and probably heresy.  "the body of Christ is the Church" for 2000 years to "the body of Christ subsists in the Church" is a major change and likely heresy.  So vatican ii popes signed off on that error and spread that error around the world.  Then the whole right to freedom of religion which was condemned directly by previous teaching. 

With that in mind it's not clear to me the status of the priests bishops and the Pope.  It seems like if someone is a freemason and/or heretic they cannot be a pope, but people make counter arguments which in some ways seem reasonable.    

My best conclusion as a layman with a family, jurisdiction isn't my problem, if I approach a validly ordained (those ordained with the Pius XII rites) priest for sacraments whether he has ordinary jurisdiction or not the sacraments he gives me are valid.  If there is any issue regarding jurisdiction or whether or not he is a heretic or schismatic doesn't affect the sacrament.  

If he is a manifest heretic, his mass is a sacrilege, and even if the sacrament is valid no graces "flow", and you sin.


The outwardly in the original Latin is manifeste.

My point is, it's definitely not clear that the traditional priest down the street is a heretic/schismatic, because Francis certainly appears to be a heretic.  On the other hand the new mass seems like it could be valid and many people will argue that it is a valid mass. It's hard for me in good conscience to say that the local diosecan priest is a heretic or schismatic.
To me the position seems very difficult to make sense of and to know to a certainty what exactly are the right answers.

There is no way to be sure about visibility and jurisdiction.

Well, sure there is.  Jurisdiction has to do with having 1) proper priestly/bishop orders (you would have potential jurisdiction), 2) being assigned to diocese or religious order by your superiors (jurisdiction in act).  Canon law makes such a distinction when the Church SUPPLIES jurisdiction for emergency situations (for the good of the faithful, who ask a valid priest/bishop for the sacraments).
.
In the case of Traditionalists, if we ask our local diocese for the old rites of the mass/sacraments, we will be rejected, or we will be made to accept the new rites as a condition.  Thus, the proper jurisdictional channels (our diocese) is corrupt, so we are allowed (and encouraged) by Canon Law to seek the sacraments/mass from anywhere we can (even from excommunicated or non-jurisdictioned clerics).  And these excommunicated/non-jurisdictioned clerics are ORDERED by Canon Law to provide such, because "the highest law of the Church is the salvation of souls".
.

My best conclusion as a layman with a family, jurisdiction isn't my problem, if I approach a validly ordained (those ordained with the Pius XII rites) priest for sacraments whether he has ordinary jurisdiction or not the sacraments he gives me are valid.  If there is any issue regarding jurisdiction or whether or not he is a heretic or schismatic doesn't affect the sacrament.  

Exactly.
.

My point is, it's definitely not clear that the traditional priest down the street is a heretic/schismatic, because Francis certainly appears to be a heretic.

All those who follow/accept V2 are heretics.  Now maybe they don't realize their error fully (+Francis obviously does) and maybe they are so confused as to not be formal heretics (i.e. knowingly obstinate) but they are at least material heretics (i.e. unknowingly in error).
.

On the other hand the new mass seems like it could be valid and many people will argue that it is a valid mass.

There are 3 ways to judge the new mass - 1) on the basis of validity.  2) on the basis of legality.  3) on the basis of morality.
.
Validity - There are quite a few doubts which exist concerning it's validity.  For these doubts alone, one cannot attend it, because canon law forbids attendance at doubtful masses.  Yet, at the end of the day, only the Church can decide its validity.
.
Conclusion:  The new mass is doubtfully valid.  uOf this, there is no doubt.  ...Even if the new mass was 100% valid, it is still sinful for the reasons below...
.
.
Legality - As +Benedict confirmed in his 2007 motu, the 1962 missal was always allowed and never abrogated.  The new mass' introduction in 1969 did not affect the 1962 missal, and by extension, the law which created it - Quo Primum - is also still law and in force.  Quo Primum's commands are many:  1) it allows the Traditional rite "in perpetuity" for all priests of the latin rite.  2) it forbids any cleric from being forced to use another missal (i.e. new mass).  3) it forbids any changes, edits, additions to the missal (i.e. except for obvious minor changes, like additions to the calendar).  4) it COMMANDS that ONLY this missal be used, and FORBIDS the use of any other missal (i.e. new mass).  All of this under pain of serious sin.
.
Conclusion - the new mass is, beyond question, illegal and sinful.  Quo Primum is still in force and Paul VI's missal is not allowed to be used, by law.
.
.
Morality - Anyone who has come into contact with the new mass readily sees the protestant, relaxed, informal, noisy, irreverent, "community oriented" nature of the new mass' atmosphere.  Such an anti-Catholic and anti-contemplative atmosphere is not holy and it is so by design.  Add to this the scandalous dress of the faithful, the blasphemous casualness of the "priest", the sacrileges of communion-in-the-hand, girl altar servers, women Eucharistic ministers, women in the sanctuary, etc and you have a systemic failure of this rite to be anything close to catholic.
.
Conclusion - the new mass is a systemic, anti-Catholic, pro-protestant, sacrilegious rite, designed by Modernists to be anti-Trent and pro-new age humanism.  It is, as Fr Wathen called it in his famous book, "The Great Sacrilege".  It is, without a doubt, immoral in its very nature/design and in all of its circuмstances and atmosphere.  Simply, it is not catholic.
.
.

It's hard for me in good conscience to say that the local diosecan priest is a heretic or schismatic.

Heresy and schism (and any sin) is composed of two things - the external forum (i.e. objective reality) and the internal (i.e. subjective understanding of the sin by the person).  Based on reality, objectively speaking, all those who accept V2 are heretics and schismatics.  This is just a fact.  These we call material heretics/schismatics (i.e. from outside/material appearances, they accept error).  This type of judgement all catholics are called to do, because we must judge the world against God's Law.  We must judge truth vs error.  Labelling someone a 'material heretic' does not mean you are judging their intentions (i.e. internal forum), nor their willingness to accept error.  It only has to do with judging error.
.
Example:  If someone is one the street corner yelling that "2+2=5", they are obviously wrong.  Why they are wrong is another matter.  We don't know if they are insane, or evil, or just retarded.  But what matters is labeling them as "materially wrong".  The reason for the error is irrelevant.
.
The term 'formal heretic' has to do with judging the internal forum, judging the heart, and trying to determine the level of acceptance a person has for error.  Only God can fully do this, but the Church has canon law processes to determine a person's guilty or knowledge.  As St Paul explains, we should charitably rebuke those in error 2x, and if they do not accept the correction and still hold to error, then they are to be declared anathema (i.e. they have knowingly accepted error, so we can judge them as obstinate in sin).  This process of determining obstinacy is necessary to declare one a "formal heretic" (i.e. a pernicious heretic).  You are correct to say that a lay catholic is wrong to judge someone a formal heretic, because we have not the authority of the Church to interrogate them and determine their obstinacy.
.
Example:  If a person believes that "2+2=5" but you sit them down and prove they are wrong, but they still cling to their error, then they can be judged as "formally wrong" and obstinate.
.
All catholics are called to judge material heresy, because we are all called to defend Truth and to reject the errors of the world.  So, it is not wrong (nay, it is necessary) to determine material error, for only then can we protect the innocent from temptation, charitably instruct the ignorant, and separate the scandalous (wolves) from the orthodox (sheep).  The determination of formal/obstinacy is left to Church authority.

The canons you are referring to only apply to confession in danger of death.

Yes and no.  Certain canons deal with “danger of death” scenarios which allow confession to be received by heretical, schismatic and/or excommunicated clerics.  
.
However, there are additional “emergency” canons which deal with lack-of-jurisdiction clerics (ie clerics who are orthodox, and not heretical, not excommunicated, not schismatic) who are allowed to operate outside of diocesan/religious authority (same applies to laymen) if there is an emergency need (whether real or only perceived).   Canon law presumes a good intention, and it gives the benefit of the doubt to those who are in “emergency need” of mass/sacraments.  

However, there are additional “emergency” canons which deal with lack-of-jurisdiction clerics (ie clerics who are orthodox, and not heretical, not excommunicated, not schismatic) who are allowed to operate outside of diocesan/religious authority (same applies to laymen) if there is an emergency need (whether real or only perceived).

No there's not. That is a traditional Catholic fairy tale  The once exception that applies to the laity, is when an engaged couple is unable to locate a priest to witness their marriage within a month.   In that case, the Church allows them to perform their vows in the presence of any two witnesses, and she supplies the jurisdiction for marriage to be valid.

The church never supplies jurisdiction for priests with no canonical mission to administer the sacraments.    
  
"Canon law presumes a good intention, and it gives the benefit of the doubt to those who are in “emergency need” of mass/sacraments."

Good intentions don't matter. The objection conditions have to be met for the Church to supply jurisdiction.  

Quote from: XavierSem on Wed Jan 01 2020 11:35:31 GMT-0500 (EST)
God shows, as by a clear sign, all who wish to see where Truth lies, that SVism is not where it's at.

If therefore they shall say to you: Behold he is in the desert, go ye not out: Behold he is in the closets, believe it not. (Matt 24:26)