That's clearly false based on the teaching of Leo XIII regarding the Anglican Orders, namely, that even if the essential form is strictly valid, the rite could be invalidated ex adiunctis.

Like Mormon baptisms. Ok. Unlike Anglicans, the Vatican II church still apparently teaches, and officially, the doctrines of transubstantiation and true sacrifice. So, unless it’s obvious, why would I just presume a reason to doubt ... 

The new mass is at least illegal because it breaks the law of Quo Primum, being illegal it is therefore illicit, therefore immoral, therefore a sin. Quo Primum is every trad's refuge.

Popes do not have the authority to declare laws that can never be changed or obsoleted by later Popes.

Consider the very purpose of Quo Primum. Quo Primum is the law of the Church established by Pope St. Pius V for the very purpose of protecting Her Liturgy forever.

If we say that the law of Quo Primum is not binding even to popes, then we must admit that the Church has no way of protecting Her own Liturgy.- Fr. Wathen

That's a different matter.  The Angelicans can say the rite correctly, but it is still invalid because they do not have the anointing passed down from Jesus through the Apostles.  That is what the Pope was referring to.

I believe even an illicitly ordained Anglican would not generally effect a valid Eucharistic Sacrament within the Anglican “church” with the “correct” rite. 

This is because there’s more to validity of form than the material aspect of the words pronounced; words are more than vocal sounds, which don’t objectively signify anything, but their essence is in their meaning, and that meaning can depend heavily on the context in which they are pronounced. Anglicans can talk about the real presence, the body and blood, and even about a sacrifice, but it’s clear from what that sect officially teaches and generally believes that they do not mean by the what we Catholics (and Orthodox) do.

In such a situation there would surely have to exist in the celebrant more than mere “minimal” intention to do what the (Catholic) Church does. No?

And there’s what I glean to be the most legitimate worry about the Novus Ordo itself (apart from the valid priesthood): minimal intention. You’d have to go really far out of your way to fudge that one in the traditional rites.

Protect it from innovations by parishes and dioceses, to keep the whole Church using approved rites rather than local corrupted forms.
Pope St. Pius V was not first among Popes. He did not have the authority to declare that no Pope may ever change his laws, just as he changed rites instituted by older Popes.

Amazing.

In your world, if a pope did what the popes have done, they are no longer popes, bishops are no longer bishops, priests are no longer priests and the Church is destroyed. Same old sede logic.
Amazing.

Where did I claim to be a Sedevacantist?
More to the point, where have I claimed that a pope can become a heretic and thereby lose office? That’s impossible, because it is dogma, Session 4 of Vatican I, that the successor of Peter has gift of unfailing faith.  
Incidentally, that little fact flies in the face of your R&R position in which you deny that man you recognise as Pope has the Faith. That’s absurd. But your entire position is absurd, which is why your only response to my pointing this out was to ignore what I said and respond by attacking an imaginary belief which I do not hold. 
So I’ll just say it again:
In your world the Church, the idefectible Church, needs to protect her liturgy from herself: not from rogue priests and rebellious ordinaries, but from the no less than successor of Peter and the bishops in union with him.

One is left scratching ones head over how absurd that is.

Where did I claim to be a Sedevacantist?
More to the point, where have I claimed that a pope can become a heretic and thereby lose office? That’s impossible, because it is dogma, Session 4 of Vatican I, that the successor of Peter has gift of unfailing faith.  
Incidentally, that little fact flies in the face of your R&R position in which you deny that man you recognise as Pope has the Faith. That’s absurd. But your entire position is absurd, which is why your only response to my pointing this out was to ignore what I said and respond by attacking an imaginary belief which I do not hold.
So I’ll just say it again:
In your world the Church, the idefectible Church, needs to protect her liturgy from herself: not from rogue priests and rebellious ordinaries, but from the no less than successor of Peter and the bishops in union with him.

One is left scratching ones head over how absurd that is.

THIS^^^

If you don't think you're a sede, wake up - you are.

Let's clear this up, shall we:
I do not claim that the See of Peter is vacant. I do not claim that Jorge Bergoglio is not Francis I and Pope.
Therefore I am not, by definition, a Sedevacantist.

Neither am I in material schism with my fellow Catholics.  I attend the Tridentine mass in London every Sunday as it has been celebrated by priests in communion with Rome without interruption through Vatican II, and I attend the Novus Ordo at the Oratory or St. James Spanish Place, which are centres of liturgical excellence regardless of the rite, on certain occasions or when the former is not available to me during the week.
Kindly retract your calumnous accusation.

Lets examine V1's session 4 for a second shall we? There are two truths you need to accept absolutely before there is any hope for you:

I'm waiting for this examination yours ... still waiting ... still waiting ...

1) You misunderstand the above teaching and at the same time, you demonstrate very clearly that have no faith at all in what you think it means.

This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See
means, as do all dogmatic teachings of the Church, EXACTLY WHAT IT LITERALLY SAYS: the Pope has been given, by Christ, NEVER-FAILING FAITH. I am not interested in anyone's "interpretation" of this, least of all that parroted from an "ex" Freemason and a lay SSPX theologian (God bless them) who apply this same sort of "interpretive" sophistry to deny doctrines like Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
To quote further,

so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine
so that even if you reject the literal meaning of never-failing faith, you still deny, whatever you mean by the former term, that this refers to a something which enables the Pope to discharge his office for the salvation of all , keeping them away from error and nourishing them with divine doctrine, which NEVER FAILS.
To the contrary, R&R hold that the Pope is causing the damnation of the flock, nourishing them on error and keeping from them divine doctrine! It's a total inversion of Catholic teaching! But of course you lot ad hoc deny that the Pope is "discharging his office" whenever it is convenient to you to do so, in a bit of circular reasoning, limiting the reality of the Petrine office to such a degree that it s very existence has supposedly been totally irrelevant - at best - for the last half-centtury.

2) If it indeed means what you think it means, then it is you who are wrong, not the popes, and you greatly displease God for your lack of faith and complete unbelief in His words.

Question-begging time is back.
Doubt as to the correct answers in the absence of definitive teaching or evidence in a time of confusion and crisis is not a sin. Presuming to make a definitive decision that amounts to formal schism IF CORRECT just might be.

And again, you have no idea what you are even talking about, but allow me to attempt to set you straight about my world - in my world, the Church needs to protect her liturgy from whoever seeks to destroy it. In my world, popes are not the Church.

I your world you are your own proximate rule of faith and highest Earthly authority, while the popes are effectively mere figureheads to be obeyed or believed as you deem it right. What you acknoledge with your lips is not what you acknowledge by your actions. That's a fact. You never answer it but just sidetrack the argument (as usual).
The existence of the Pope is only a box to tick for you because a blank there would present a problem for a bit of armchair theology, but his existence seems to have few practical implications for your life outside of that, and certainly not in most of the key areas which are the reason for his existence. A pope you don't like, you ignore or even slander, a pope who teaches something you decide is false, you disbelieve and maybe deem a heretic, but you have your "una cuм" mass - what a lie that is!