Some commenters will do anything except be honest in able to dismiss the inconvenient truth.

I never said the Latin Rite will deteriorate. It already has. That took place when the Novus Ordo Mass was forced on tye dioceses.

Instead, I am saying that the Byzantine seeds are planted enough to grow into a legitimate defense of the Faith against the modern crisis. The SSPX, Resistance and some Sede Vacantist groups have accepted perpetual crisis management when the Truth is not that dark. Valid Catholic bishops and priests exist outside the structure of SSPX and they never became Modernists.

It’s hard to accept that one specific group isn’t going to save the Church for one certain group. It actually perpetuates the Crisis to some degree.

Your base argument is still flawed...that the Church (i.e. Trads in the West) simply abandon the Latin Rite and switch to Eastern rites.

b.  Tradition in the Latin Rite is still a legit defense of the Faith, same as the Eastern rite.
c.  Yes, there is a "perpetual" crisis until there's not.  God decides when it's over, not us.

I still don't get your whole outlook.  You found the Eastern rite and you like it.  GREAT!  Spread the word to as many people as you want.

But why do you feel the need to trash Western Tradition?  Just leave us alone and we'll let God handle it.  You go be Eastern and do your thing.

...
The specific state of necessity I am talking about does not concern access to Mass for the laity. It concerns the extension of that necessity to episcopal consecrations.

...

Name the Easter Rite Bishops that are willing to ordain priests for the SSPX, or are willing to consecrate a bishop for them, even without Papal approval?

Your claim here is that the Roman Church issued Canon 671 in their Code of Canon Law. It involves what could be considered communicatio in sacris. I doubt you knew the term last week. You claim that because this defective Canon Law of 1983 exists and specific bishops of the Eastern Rites did not speak loudly enough for your approval, they are therefore non-Catholic heretics and outside the Church.

Your level of understanding is a waste of time to me. I’ve already dismantled this claim and similar claims on this thread. I will repeat them one last time. Not for your benefit. I do not believe you are capable of benefiting from it at this time.

The Byzantine Church does not accept docuмents from Rome as its “Faith”. It accepts what has been absorbed into its liturgical prayer as Faith. It accepts what it teaches its Faithful through its prayer life. Lex orandi, lex credendi est. It is operative in the Byzantine world, not something written in a manual.

For those of us that have been in Tradition long enough to remember Michael Davies and the Ottoviani Intervention, lex orandi, lex credendi was huge in pioneer Traditionalists arguments against the Novus Ordo Missæ. That’s why it is so fundamental here.

To actually think that Canon Law published in Rome says such and such so from now on all Eastern Catholic Churches should be completely wrote off is not an argument worthy of any real response. It’s not a “gotcha” moment. It’s weak. And emits weakness and lack of understanding.

What google search engines and A.I interfaces do is amplify intelligence…or lack thereof.

Eastern Churches

Canon 671 - §1. Catholic ministers licitly administer the sacraments only to Catholic Christian faithful,
who, likewise, licitly receive the sacraments only from Catholic ministers.
§2. If necessity requires it or genuine spiritual advantage suggests it and provided that the danger of
error or indifferentism is avoided, it is permitted for Catholic Christian faithful, for whom it is physically or
morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, to receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist
and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers, in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
§3. Likewise Catholic ministers licitly administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing
of the sick to Christian faithful of Eastern Churches, who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask for them on their own and are properly disposed. This holds also for the Christian
faithful of other Churches, who according to the judgment of the Apostolic See, are in the same condition
as the Eastern Churches as far as the sacraments are concerned.
§4. If there is a danger of death or another matter of serious necessity in the judgment of the eparchial
bishop, the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church or the council of hierarchs, Catholic ministers licitly
administer the same sacraments also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic
Church, who cannot approach the ministers of their own ecclesial communities and who request them on
their own, provided they manifest a faith consonant with that of the Catholic Church concerning these
sacraments and are rightly disposed.
§5. For the cases in §§2, 3 and 4, norms of particular law are to be enacted only after consultation with at
least the local competent authority of the non-Catholic Church or ecclesial community concerned.

Canon 1 - The canons of this Code affect all and solely the Eastern Catholic Churches, unless, with
regard to relations with the Latin Church, it is expressly stated otherwise.

Your claim here is that the Roman Church issued Canon 671 in their Code of Canon Law. It involves what could be considered communicatio in sacris. I doubt you knew the term last week. You claim that because this defective Canon Law of 1983 exists and specific bishops of the Eastern Rites did not speak loudly enough for your approval, they are therefore non-Catholic heretics and outside the Church.