I'm not even sure what that term means.

There's positive doubt, negative doubt ... but systematic doubt?

Who knows Ladislaus. Maybe its one of those crazy opinions spinning off from dogmatic sedevacantism....

Right ... as if the validity of the +Thuc line has anything to do with anyone's position on the Crisis.  Maybe Alfred Mendez was a dogmatic sedevacantist too, eh?

You get ridiculouser and ridiculouser every time you post now.  Got nothing else left?

I'm not even sure what that term means.

There's positive doubt, negative doubt ... but systematic doubt?

Thank you for the response! Here it is within its full paragraph:

"Thus, far from making the sacramental action more readily understandable or facilitating its worthy reception, the new Rite of sacraments does otherwise. It relativizes the truths of Faith, reducing the sacred effects of sacramental graces. In this perspective, perhaps the sacraments administered according to the new Rite "might be in principle valid," IF THE MATTER, FORM, AND INTENTION are performed by a validly ordained sacred minister. To cripple one of these latter essential elements might consequently generate a doubt for their reception.
Certainly, it is not considered as a systematic doubt. It nevertheless is a serious and important positive doubt which must be considered both by the laity receiving sacraments and by the priests for a licit performance of the sacraments, and their validity."


-Ladislaus, the take away for me is that the above implies the New Rite is not intrinsically defective.

I came across a statement on the New Rite claiming it is “not considered as a systematic doubt.” How can this be reconciled with Archbishop Lefebvre’s repeated warnings that the reforms introduce intrinsic defects in matter, form, and intention? Is there a nuance I’m missing, or is there a deeper theological tension here?

That's a new term for sure, and I could be wrong but I would say that the term means something along the lines of: "it's valid, or at least not automatically doubtful, when done by the book." Which makes about as much sense as everything else NO.  

Nowhere in Tradition does the term “systematic doubt” appear. What does it mean other than the meaning assigned by a single comment on CI—-hardly authoritative! 

I’ll paraphrase Bp. Sanborn, “You don’t miss Mass when you’ve no Mass to miss.” 

If there is such a thing as systemic doubt, the V2 rites are it.  The priest is doubtful, the form is doubtful.  In some cases, even the matter is doubtful.  It’s a mess.

That is what I thought Archbishop Lefebvre made clear, that the doubt was "systematic" Bishop Williamson for many years held to this as well, his excellency Bishop Williamson said : "...The New Mass is in any case illicit. In any case. It's designed to please Protestants, it's designed to undo Catholicism. It's intrinsically offensive to God, it's intrinsically evil. That's how it was designed and that's how it turned out."

"It's intrinsically offensive to God, it's intrinsically evil." = Systematic Doubt.