https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_ddf_doc_20240202_gestis-verbisque_en.html

You would be surprised. Bishop Sanborn actually claimed the opposite - he said it is the simplest Sacrament but the one that is most commonly messed up. 

In some of the more, for lack of a better word, primitive manifestations of Protestantism, the minister will say "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost", with no "and of" before "the Son" or "the Holy Ghost".  (Thankfully, at least they do often say "Holy Ghost".)  It's more ungrammatical than anything else, but it is still kind of "cringe".  They also immerse the baptized person just once, not three times.  Whether either of these things makes the baptism doubtful, I couldn't say without looking further into the matter, I'm guessing that Jone (or someone) could put a finer point on it.

Yes, and OTOH, it also shows the mind of the SSPX that when done "by the book," the ordination is valid.

Yes and the 'mind of the sspx' on the matter is baseless.  As you said in the above post...But nobody is defending the new rite as positively valid, it has *always* been deemed "doubtful at best" by the faithful. 

Even a "by the book" service is doubtful, because the doubts are inherent in the rite itself.

This has been the case since the start of this crisis. In my mind, most (many?) NO priests are invalid due to the consecrating bishops not going "by the book."

Even a "by the book" service is doubtful, because the doubts are inherent in the rite itself.  As +Tissier (and others) have explained.

A few decades ago, the SSPX had a type of running list of these bishops, as well as those known to always go "by the book." So when a NO priest came to them, the whole investigation might only be a matter of asking who ordained him. As was the case with Fr. Hesse and who knows how many others. 

This is a super shaky, evidence-less, and just outright assumption-filled way to decide on the matter.  The sspx should be ashamed.

You are contradicting yourself:

"NO ordinations have always been positively doubtful"

then,

"the SSPX, like the Church, initially always presumes validity, not invalidity."

The reason you are doing this is rather simple:

Do you believe that the post VII church is the Catholic Church? Yes or No?

No, the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church. And when I said "NO ordinations have always been positively doubtful" I meant from a layman's point of view.

When I said "the SSPX, like the Church, initially always presumes validity, not invalidity," I mean that for those responsible for making sure their priests are valid.

While *I* think they should just completely re-train and conditionally ordain all convert priests indiscriminately,  it is for good reason that they don't and never have. They are not the Church. 

I also explained to you why the presumption is always validity, but as I also said, for whatever reason you are among those who do not accept it.

If you say yes - it is the Catholic Church - then of course, She always presumes the validity of HER OWN Sacraments (never of those outside the Church - that is why investigations are the first step concerning baptisms)

If you say no - the conciliar church is NOT the Catholic Church - then it must be treated as any non-Catholic sect and validity is never presumed rather it would depend on various factors such as their rites, how they conduct them, history of abuses, etc.

You are throwing the baby out with the bath water. You may not know that even heretic, schismatic and excommunicated bishops have and can confer valid sacraments, including that of Holy Orders, as well as consecrations of other bishops. 

Ordinations - as you stated, they do their own investigations, based on their own criteria to determine validity so initially they are presumed as doubtful until they do their "investigation"

I don't know, that may be the case, but the purpose of their investigation is supposed to be to prove doubt or invalidity.

I agree that all those classes of non-members CAN (it is possible) confect valid Sacraments.

You just summed up the situation in the Church today which we're discussing in one sentence.

Snip from Who Shall Ascend?

"...It is not our purpose in these pages to decide whether the new ordination rite is invalid, though, as we shall see, the argument is substantial enough that we are bound to allow for this possibility. Furthermore, we must see the issue in the context of the total redefinition and reconstitution of the Church, such as was set in motion at the
Council. In view of the fact that, since the Council, the priest's role has been in the process of being modified, as we said, to that of a Protestant presbyter, there is every reason to deduce that the new ordination rite sabotages the Sacrament of Holy Orders according to the explicit program and purposes of those now in power. (The reader
is reminded that the very doubt which this change creates serves the malevolent purposes of the conspirators as well as does the certitude of invalidity, because from the doubt flows controversy, disagreements,  factions, confusion, and disquietude among the clergy and the faithful.)

By way of preface, we observe: The revisers had a reason for making changes, and particular reasons for each change they made.  They cannot argue that their new formulas are identical to the old; that would be to admit that the changes mean nothing, and that, therefore, there was no reason to make them. To admit that they made
changes for no reason whatsoever would be a sign of a most irreverent capriciousness and cynicism. Besides, such an explanation could only be regarded as a concealment. The new forms (Latin and English) must be seen to say something different from the old. Furthermore, in view of what the other changes in the liturgical rites have connoted, we are compelled to be suspicious. We should rather say, we have  every reason to look for an effort at neuterizing this sacramental rite, because those in charge of the new rites have shown themselves untrustworthy,
or, more accurately, determinedly subversive. The new form could not be an improvement on the old. How can one method or  set of words ordain someone better than another? The alteration of the form can only have had the intention of either negating this purpose, or, at the very least, of creating a doubt as to its efficacy. (As if it
needs to be said: They could not have added something to the form by taking words away. And what could they have wanted to add to the power of Orders? Why did they touch the form at all?)..."

I also explained to you why the presumption is always validity,

Yes and no.  You're not making distinctions.


Trent told us that we must presume validity...BUT...this only applies to the "received and approved rites".  Trent's Presumed validity ONLY applies to the rites Trent was discussing (i.e. Tridentine/St Pius V/Traditional rites).

V2's rites aren't Tridentine and aren't from Trent.  Ergo, presumed validity doesn't apply.

"Another attack?"  "One of... them?"    "How dare you!"

Sad...

God has rights, His Church has rights, Her members have rights. No member of the Church, absent the jurisdictional authority of the pope has the right to determine the validity of the Sacraments on their own. We are commanded to judge all things with the judgement of Christ (1 Cor. 2:15) but we don't judge souls - that is God's domain.

That is the entire point I am making. We are in unprecedented times, with a fake pope, no pope, antipope, bad pope, loopy pope, (whatever you like) so I am asking others what criteria do you use to determine who to trust about these "investigations"? Stubborn was the only one that answered me. Did I "judge" him? No - I thanked him for sharing - even if I disagree with his method.

If you and your priest were born and raised in Tradition, this isn't even a problem for you.

Just like my other poll/post, if you don't want to play, why drop by? You can just ignore me. This is forum, I am a member as you are, If Matthew lets me stay, I can ask questions, you can choose to answer them or not.

God bless you.

That's not actually an answer to my question, so I'll ask it again. What right do you have to judge how we determine the validity of sacraments? Who do you think you are? And...I don't have to ignore this thread. I am allowed to post on it. 

I have authority over my own soul, I have no authority on an internet forum that is absurd. I am questioning others to measure their way of doing things to determine if I can learn from them. If You don't like my questions - then don't answer them. Run along now.

God bless you.

You do presume to have authority here. You have been a forum member....for what....13 days or so? And you are presuming already to tell us what we are supposed to believe, as if you have authority here. But you do not.