So ... yeah, we know that the final determination requires authority, but we can make arguments and establish some significant positive doubt.

But then you contradict yourself.  IF these guys have been Popes, they have in fact already determined with papal authority that these Rites are valid.  So the case is closed.  That is in fact the single strongest argument in favor of the validity of the Rites, even if it rests on the disputed premise of their legitimacy ... but most R&R will not go there,

because they've spent decades arguing against the Church's disciplinary infallibility,

since that same infallibility, which would ensure the validity of the Rites, would also ensure that the Church..."

"...because they've spent decades arguing against the Church's disciplinary infallibility,..."

SSPX= R&R, so I don't think we are talking about the same Church... +L preached mostly about the infallibility of Eternal Rome, the Church of Tradition, the TRUE Church.  Can you give examples that they were arguing against the Church's disciplinary infallibility?  They would criticize N.O. church ( in the real SSPX) . I not  2 % theologian.
Laymen can doubt sacraments, and they should rebuke bishops  'to their face' if something isn't done correctly. +L even considered N.O. baptisms to be valid,

["... je ne dis pas que tous les sacrements soient invalides, ni qu’ils soient hérétiques, mais ils sont empoisonnés : ils ont une autre orientation, ] 1976, Associations St Pie V, 
{...I don't say that all the sacraments are invalid, neither that they are heretical, but that they are poisoned,: they have an other orientation..."

because so many things were deleted in the N.O. rite. But at other times he would simply say: "This is not my problem, it is God's problem". or something very close to that. This is the reason for Conditional sacraments, no?

I actually don't really believe in the Church's disciplinary infallibility. Despite being the common opinion of theologians, it remains an opinion. I find it interesting that when the Church defined infallibility, She only bothered to do so regarding Her solemn magisterium. Why not just tell us clearly that Her universal laws and rites are also dogmatically impeccable? She didn't bother and it wouldn't have been that hard. Makes me wonder. Even about the Universal, Ordinary Magisterium.

Even if it hasn't been defined, that's objectively heretical and will be condemned as such when this all blows over.  So, according to you, the Church can fail in her mission of saving souls by, oh, promulgating a Mass that offends God and brings harm to souls, or establish a cult for "saints" who are likely in Hell and at the very least were enemies of the Faith.  It's terrifying to see how many of you are losing the faith.  That's to say nothing about how idiotic it is to assert that because Vatican I had not defined it ... yet ... that it isn't true.

Dogmatically impeccable?  That's not a thing.

As for why not define it ... well, Vatican I was interrupted by various wars the Masons started to interrupt it.  So they may have gone on to define it.  But even if they chose not to, that could be fur any number of reasons.  Even with what they did define, there were many inopportunists who didn't think it should be defined, even while believing it to be true.

God permitted them not to define it to be a test of faith today ... one that you are failing.

VI. THE FORENSIC VERDICT: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Based on the evidence gathered through this audit, the following findings are established regarding the 1968 Rite of Ordination (Pontificalis Romani):

1. The Failure of Signification (The "Ask/Receive" Defect)

- A Sacrament is an efficient sign that must explicitly point to the specific supernatural reality it intends to create.

- The 1968 Rite surgically removed the specific petition for the power to offer the Propitiatory Sacrifice (Hostias Salutares).

- By substituting this with a generic request for "meritorious ministry," the rite fails to "Ask" for the Priestly Character.

Finding: Where there is no specific "Ask" for the Power, there is no specific "Receive" of the Character.


2. The Juridical Substitution (Valorem vs. Validitatem)

- The Curial architects utilized a semantic shift from validitatem(ontological being) to valorem (legal rank).

- The 1968 decree defines the "essential words" as pertaining to the "nature of the thing" (naturam rei) and required only so that the "act may have value" (ut actus valeat).

Finding: The rite is designed to install a man into a legal "Nature" (Rank) within an administrative structure, but it lacks the language required for ontological "Validity" in the Order of Being.


3. The Severing of the Apostolic Lineage

- In the Traditional Rite, the "Transfusion" clause (Petition A) identifies the transmission of the "Mystical Blood" (Power) from the Bishop to the Priest for the purpose of offering Sacrifice.

- The 1968 Rite retains the verb transfudisti but directs the transfusion toward a "meritorious ministry," which is a redundancy of Grace, not an identification of Power.

Finding: By removing the "trace" of the Sacrifice from the very clause intended to transmit the Priesthood, the Apostolic Succession is effectively severed.


4. The Irrelevance of Ministerial Intent

- The Church is the servant, not the master, of the Sacramental signs.

- The intention of the minister is "borrowed" from the rite; a minister cannot intend to effect a power that the rite itself has deliberately excluded.

Finding: Because the form is "broken" in its signification, the personal intent of the ordaining bishop is incapable of repairing the ontological nullity of the act.

---

FINAL JUDGMENT

The 1968 Rite represents a substantial departure from the "Ontological Law" of the Magisterium. It replicates the Anglican defect condemned by Pope Leo XIII by surgically removing the mention of the Sacrifice and the Sacerdotium from the operative prayers.

Consequently, it is the conclusion of this audit that the 1968 "Presbyter" possesses the Valorem (Legal Status/Rank) granted by an administrative structure, but possesses nulla Validitatem (Zero Validity) in the Order of Being. The rite fails to communicate the Sacramental Character, leaving behind a legal shell that has the name of a Church but has lost the means to effect the Priesthood of Jesus Christ.

It may indeed be erroneous, but outright heretical, no. These things are not defined. It is theological discussion that usually gives the Church reason to lay down definitively teaching on a certain point. I would probably be raked over the coals if I were saying this before the council because no theologian could ever dream of the cataclysm we are witnessing today. But the situation being what it is, where theology as it had been expounded up till the 60s doesn't really give a good answer as to what's going on right now, I feel pretty confident that the true Church when she addresses the crisis is going to either tell us it was a mystery or give us a surprising explanation. I'll follow what I witnessed BP. Williamson saying once upon a time: "the Church is less infallible than we thought."

All in all, I think you and I sit in exactly the same boat. I call into question above what was once held as certain by most men of theology; but you do the same by maintaining that the entire Church can peaceably adhere to an altogether illegitimate, false hierarchy. Of course you are one that feel entitled to tell me that I've lost the faith and that I will be condemned. I suppose that is because the situation is all so obvious and clear to you.

Just stop it with the "mystery" nonsense.  While we don't know precisely what happened, who did what, who all the bad actors were, that does not mean that we pitch the Church's disciplinary infallibility just to rescue being able to have Prevost's picture in the vestibule.

See, Archbishop Lefebvre clearly stated that the protection of the Holy Ghost over the Papacy would prevent this degree of destruction.  He merely prevaricated on ... HOW what has happened happened, ruminating over whther there was blackmail, or the Conciliar popes were controlled, or ... he said that SVism is quite likely.  But he DID NOT pitch the essential Catholic DOGMA that the Papacy cannot wreck the Church.

Vatican I, writings of Cardinal Manning, uses the word "might", however in language used in defining.  Vatican I can be read. Cardinal Manning andante Pope Leo XIII were in agreement that the Holy Ghost protection over the Papacy was "might" the Pope with his office heed the Gifts of the Holy Ghost.  Both Cardinal Manning and Pope Leo XIII agreed that is it possible for a Pope to go wrong in his pontificate. ( I understand that Pope Leo was not pope at the Vatican I, but he was of the magistrium and Cardinal Manning may not have been a Cardinal at the time, but he too was of the magisterium)  The magisterium over 600 bishops put all their 2 cents into the clarification of Papal Infallibility.  Nomination and election of a Pope is defined to a point where it holds infallibility, says Manning.  So, can a Pope go wrong in his pontificate, yes, they both agreed. So, note when you read Vatican I that "might" is used several times.

No, ontology is the study of being. St. Thomas defines the primary mode of being as a "substance." Every material "substance" consists of "matter and form." This is basic Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics. And the Church's dogmatic theology applies this metaphysical schema to the Sacraments, which is then codified in Canon Law.  So, when I speak of "Ontological Law of the Magisterium" I am speaking of that kind of ontology.

Here is what Pius XII said in Sacramentum Ordinis:

For these Sacraments instituted by Christ Our Lord, the Church in the course of the centuries never substituted other Sacraments, nor could she do so, since, as the Council of Trent teaches (Conc. Trid., Sess. VII, can. 1, De Sacram, in genere), the seven Sacraments of the New Law were all instituted by Jesus Christ Our Lord, and the Church has no power over “the substance of the Sacraments,” that is, over those things which, as is proved from the sources of divine revelation, Christ the Lord Himself established to be kept as sacramental signs.


If a rite—like the 1968 Rite—replaces the "matter and form" of the Priesthood (the power to offer Sacrifice) with a generic "meritorious ministry," it has violated the Ontological Law. It has created a legal shell (Valorem) but failed to effect a new being (Validitatem).

You say no "Forensic Monograph" is required because Leo XIII already did the work. I agree. My audit simply applies Leo XIII’s criteria to the 1968 Rite to show that the same "vitiation of intention" and "defect of form" are present. The "word salad" is actually the bedrock of how we distinguish a Priest from a legal functionary.

 this is clearly an AI response, nobody types out em dashes. I won't waste my time arguing

Interesting questions/ comments.

I am guilty of posting AI short information clips. The CI member should have sources  - if it is found on the web, newspapers etc. , and almost everyone does, yes? Lots of Youtube lins that's for sure!  Then everyone is on the same page, literally .

I have two thoughts at the moment:

1. AI is / will certainly pop up in many of life's situations from now on, as in, it's NOT going away. It sure speeds up research on any topic under the sun.

2. When I post AI clips, I always mention the source as AI Google etc. at the beginning of my article. 95% of the translations that I post are AI (iPhone is super good btw.) So the psychological reaction is: "OK, This is the info a computer gathered about my Topic", and keep that perspective as you read...and understand that no one is trying to fool you, or lie etc. You are warned and it is transparent -You are at liberty to classify info as Β Σ αnd not mull over the issue.
In French we say: '
"Un homme averti en vaut deux", ( A man forewarned is worth two).

Or : "HEADS UP !  "

Vatican I, writings of Cardinal Manning, uses the word "might", however in language used in defining.  Vatican I can be read. Cardinal Manning andante Pope Leo XIII were in agreement that the Holy Ghost protection over the Papacy was "might" the Pope with his office heed the Gifts of the Holy Ghost.  Both Cardinal Manning and Pope Leo XIII agreed that is it possible for a Pope to go wrong in his pontificate. ( I understand that Pope Leo was not pope at the Vatican I, but he was of the magistrium and Cardinal Manning may not have been a Cardinal at the time, but he too was of the magisterium)  The magisterium over 600 bishops put all their 2 cents into the clarification of Papal Infallibility.  Nomination and election of a Pope is defined to a point where it holds infallibility, says Manning.  So, can a Pope go wrong in his pontificate, yes, they both agreed. So, note when you read Vatican I that "might" is used several times.

I learned that that passage of the Vatican Council of 1870 was describing infallible and infallibly safe nature of the teaching office of the papacy and not merely communicating something merely normative about it.