The question should not be whether it is logistically possible, but, rather, will any Conciliar "priests" or "bishops" seek valid orders and will RomanTheo be one of them?

Fixed that for you.

We get it, 2Vermont, you don’t believe any New Rites of Consecration/Ordination are valid.

Who needs the Church to render a verdict on this EXTREMELY complicated issue? We’ve got you!

Actually, my position on CI is that I don't think any are certainly valid.  If you're going to get sarcastic, at least get your facts correct.  To be clear, I have less doubt with the New Rite of Ordination.  However, Roman Theo is most likely ordained in the New Rite by a man consecrated in the New Rite.  I wouldn't trust anything he says here.

Facts are facts, and I'm interested in RomanTheo's responses.  A complex problem deserves looking at all angels to find a solution.  Viewing his arguments based on his background is emotional and distracting.

Except if one is ordained in the New Rite they already have an inherent bias.

While the Novus Ordo was universally (in every vernacular translation) using "for you and for all" during the Consecration, it was very likely invalid.

Now that they have reverted to "for you and for many", and since their Anaphora 1 (i.e. Canon 1) is almost verbatim the Tridentine Canon, I think that it's likely valid ... when they use that Canon.  Not so sure about the other ones.

BUT, ironically, as if by design, they only reverted to the valid formula of consecration after nearly all the pre-1968 ordained priest had died or retired.  So the NOM is still positively doubtful, but now it's more due to the fact that the New Rites of Ordination/Consecration are positively doubtful.

But if a validly-ordained priest offered the NOM using Anaphora I, I believe that it's most likely valid ... although I still think there's room for positive doubt (due to their having messed with the Offertory).

While the Novus Ordo was universally (in every vernacular translation) using "for you and for all" during the Consecration, it was very likely invalid.

Now that they have reverted to "for you and for many", and since their Anaphora 1 (i.e. Canon 1) is almost verbatim the Tridentine Canon, I think that it's likely valid ... when they use that Canon.  Not so sure about the other ones.

BUT, ironically, as if by design, they only reverted to the valid formula of consecration after nearly all the pre-1968 ordained priest had died or retired.  So the NOM is still positively doubtful, but now it's more due to the fact that the New Rites of Ordination/Consecration are positively doubtful.

But if a validly-ordained priest offered the NOM using Anaphora I, I believe that it's most likely valid ... although I still think there's room for positive doubt (due to their having messed with the Offertory).

I don't understand what's the big deal about "many" vs "all". "pro multis" can be translated as "for many" and "for the many". Multis in Latin doesn't specify whether it's the entirety of a group or not, just the quantity. Many can be all of a group in Latin. 

 

Many means almost all.

"Many" doesn't mean almost all. "Many" means a sizable amount, which is relative. "Many" can mean a sizable minority. "Most" means almost all. A "majority" means at least half plus one.

While the Novus Ordo was universally (in every vernacular translation) using "for you and for all" during the Consecration, it was very likely invalid.

That would be claiming that "for many" is essential to validity of the form.
The contrary view common in the Roman Rite is that "this is my body" and "this is my blood" are the essential parts. Some add that the words also need to signify sacrifice in some way.
At the extreme is the anaphora of Addai and Mari, which does signify a change of substance and sacrifice but doesn't use "this is..." or any words of institution, and the Vatican recognizes it as valid. 

De Defectibus
Pope St. Pius V

V - Defects of the form
20. Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are:


HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, and HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM

If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.