First of all, I personally believe the new rites are valid.  I realize most people here don't or at least have more doubts.

Second, I agree that those who die as visible members of false religions could be saved, as do *almost all* of the trad clergy including most sede clergy.

Which is really why the MHFM position is kind of absurd.  It leaves the church basically consisting of only laity at this point.

The new rite is most definitely invalid, there is a lot of evidence for this. Are you aware that the essential form and ceremonies have been changed? Also, did you know that Pius XII and Leo XIII addressed the validity of ordinations?
Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, Nov. 30, 1947: “But regarding the matter and form in the conferring of every order, by Our same supreme apostolic authority We decree and establish the following: … In the ordination of priests, the matter is the first imposition of the bishop’s hands which is done in silence… But the form [of Ordination] consists of the words of the preface of which the following are essential and so required for validity:


Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “When anyone has rightly and seriously made use of the due form and the matter requisite for effecting or conferring the sacrament he is considered by that very fact to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does, and what by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the sacrament.”

The same exact issue that the Anglican rite had which Leo XIII stated was invalid, is exactly what is wrong with the new rite!
Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “… of Our own motion and certain knowledge We pronounce and declare that Ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been and are absolutely null and utterly void.”
Also, there is absolutely no such thing as visible members of false religions. You are very much in contradiction to the dogmatic pronouncements on this issue. There is absolutely nothing that merits you believing that there is an invisible church and that every heathen is part of it. This doesn't make sense because how is anyone ever not saved with this logic?
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
You are not part of the church until you are baptized. Is is a dogma from the church.

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832:  “With the admonition of the apostle, that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever.  They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him.  Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed).” Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832: “Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”

If you say those who do not profess faith in Christ can be saved, who cannot then be saved? You are also directly rejecting the John 3:5

You should really reconsider your positions with sound reason, you are in direct contradiction of dogmatic pronouncements and scripture.

The issue with how many people reject MHFM and their positions do not make it any less true. The end is supposed to be very harsh and difficult, so much so that if it keeps going nobody could ever be saved.

ATHANASIAN CREED
"Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood....This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved."

How can't even say the Athanasian creed with what you believe, do you understand this?

Because it doesn't address the 2 churches concept, which is what this whole thread is about.

The notion of two churches has genuine utility in the sphere of discussion, especially with regard to distinguishing (1) those who adhere to the Faith handed down once for all time by the Apostles from (2) those who use the intentional ambiguities built into the conciliar docuмents to proclaim a new, better, up-to-date faith that at best resembles an image reflected in a carnival funhouse mirror. Alas for us, the latter group comprises the overwhelming mass of the laity, clergy, and prelature of the visible church.

The dualistic mode of expression may be seen in such a sentence as "They have the buildings, but we have the Faith." Likewise, the old axiom "possession is nine-tenths of the law" similarly responds to the practical limits available to a legal system that genuinely aims at doing less harm than good. That is to say, it abandons a priori any attempt to determine whether the possession in question is even licit. In both quoted statements, what looks to be absolutely straightforward is merely formally so; that is, it is so within a context whose framework needs to be made plain.

To get back to two churches, the fundamental fact to be faced is that the truth that God sees in its entirety has no necessary rhetorical connection with human attempts to express or cope with that truth. Put otherwise, if there truly were two churches, all discussion would boil down to a claim that the second group described above was guilty of false advertising. The fact that this situation, were it to be so, would make nonsense of Revelation must simply be swept under the carpet (sedes do this a lot!).

I for one shall probably continue to speak and argue as if the core issue is that there are two churches—sense evidence surely seems to confirm this—but I shall not kid myself that the actual core issue is linked to the problem of evil, which remains what it has always been: the central problem of creation. Turning our ecclesiastical superiors in the One Church in which we and they are members away from the evil they have embraced and back to the True Faith that, by rights, they should be inculcating into us is a task as daunting now as it was fifty-five years ago. Wanting to transform the task into something entirely different is certainly an error, perhaps even an error of diabolical origin.

I  left out the appropriate quote:

"All the universe will be struck with terror and many will let themselves be lead astray because they have not worshipped the true Christ who lives among them. It is time; the sun is darkening; only faith will survive" Our Lady of La Sallette, 1846 (Click for full translation)

… I shall not kid myself that the actual core issue is linked to the problem of evil …

Corrigendum: "I shall not kid myself that the actual core issue isn't linked to the problem of evil."

Mea culpa.

The notion of two churches has genuine utility in the sphere of discussion, especially with regard to distinguishing (1) those who adhere to the Faith handed down once for all time by the Apostles from (2) those who use the intentional ambiguities built into the conciliar docuмents to proclaim a new, better, up-to-date faith that at best resembles an image reflected in a carnival funhouse mirror. Alas for us, the latter group comprises the overwhelming mass of the laity, clergy, and prelature of the visible church.

The dualistic mode of expression may be seen in such a sentence as "They have the buildings, but we have the Faith." Likewise, the old axiom "possession is nine-tenths of the law" similarly responds to the practical limits available to a legal system that genuinely aims at doing less harm than good. That is to say, it abandons a priori any attempt to determine whether the possession in question is even licit. In both quoted statements, what looks to be absolutely straightforward is merely formally so; that is, it is so within a context whose framework needs to be made plain.

To get back to two churches, the fundamental fact to be faced is that the truth that God sees in its entirety has no necessary rhetorical connection with human attempts to express or cope with that truth. Put otherwise, if there truly were two churches, all discussion would boil down to a claim that the second group described above was guilty of false advertising. The fact that this situation, were it to be so, would make nonsense of Revelation must simply be swept under the carpet (sedes do this a lot!).

I for one shall probably continue to speak and argue as if the core issue is that there are two churches—sense evidence surely seems to confirm this—but I shall not kid myself that the actual core issue is linked to the problem of evil, which remains what it has always been: the central problem of creation. Turning our ecclesiastical superiors in the One Church in which we and they are members away from the evil they have embraced and back to the True Faith that, by rights, they should be inculcating into us is a task as daunting now as it was fifty-five years ago. Wanting to transform the task into something entirely different is certainly an error, perhaps even an error of diabolical origin.

Using the term "Conciliar Church" to refer to those that embrace V2 and the New Mass, etc. is perfectly fine. It's a useful term. But referring to the Conciliar Church as if it's actually a different and entirely separate Church that the pope also leads, rather than just a part of the Church that is rife with heresy and error, is something different altogether and it's completely ridiculous. For example, when I asked "Can the Church as a body can even fallibly teach things dangerous to souls?", Sean asked "Which church?", as if the Conciliar Church and the Catholic Church are two actually distinct churches in the way the Catholic and Orthodox churches are. Yesterday he said Vatican 2 was a council of the Conciliar Church and not the Catholic Church. So again, the Conciliar Church is not just a liberal and heresy-ridden segment of the Catholic Church, but it's an entirely separate church with its own separate ecuмenical councils.

What it amounts to is that the pope is the leader of the true church and a false church at the same time. Not only that, but any of his actions, even when he explicitly states they're for the Catholic Church, may actually be for the false church. How do we know when he acts for the true church and when he acts for the false church? We have no way, except Sean's private judgement about whether the act is Catholic or not.

So, to reiterate, I have no issues whatsoever with using "Conciliar Church" as a rhetorical device to refer to non-Trads, etc. But when it's envisioned as a truly separate church, no different to the Anglican Church or the Orthodox Church, etc. and then say that the pope leads that false church and the Catholic Church at the same time--THAT is what I find absurd and untenable.

Nobody has made the argument that the conciliar church is ENTIRELY distinct from the Catholic Church (de Mallerais’ article explicitly denies this).

Proof you too have not read the article.

Like a parasite attached to the host, the conciliar church is distinct from the Catholic Church, but not separated from it.

Yes, yes, "materially linked" because one can appear to be a member of both. That doesn't change the fact that a "schismatic church" with its own ecuмenical councils must be an entirely separate church. The Catholic Church cannot be in schism with itself.

As for your sede incomprehension (feigned and disingenuous, of course) about how to distinguish Catholic from conciliar teaching, and the dishonest claim that any such determination must result from private interpretation, I have already provided you the Catholic means contained in Scripture, popes, and saints:

Universality (in time).

But if applying the universality test were tantamount to private interpretation, then St. Paul and St. Vincent were teaching Protestantism!

Except you also dismissed a change to fasting discipline as conciliar. The universality of fasting laws, right?

And of course, I'd love to see where St. Paul and St. Vincent told laymen to question all the laws, decrees, promulgations, constitutions, etc. of the Church and dismiss them if we personally judge them to be novel. 

1) A false ecuмenical council is no ecuмenical council at all.  It merely has the form (method of promulgation), but not the substance (traditional Catholic doctrine);

2) Every schismatic is separated from the Catholic Church;

3) Ahem, fasting laws are not doctrines/teachings, and therefore are not judged on the basis of universality, but upon whether they conduce to the common good or are detrimental to it;

4) The purpose of both the Pauline and Vincentian injunctions were to declare that any teaching not contained in antiquity was false, and implicit in their injunction therefore is the need to assess (otherwise, why warn of false shepherds, false doctrines, and doctrinal innovations if these can neither be deduced nor resisted?).

Yet, if the sede were not able to assess doctrinal orthodoxy, by what means does he depose 6 popes (and all the future popes until the end of time)?

Therein lies the irony of being lectured about (alleged) private interpretation, made all the more ironic in light of the fact the sedes themselves agree these teachings are errors.

Violating the principle of non-contradiction, the sede claims such teachings could not emanate from the Catholic Church (at least, he does so for the sake of deposing popes), but then objects to R&R agreeing with him that such teachings do not come from the Catholic Church!

You see: We can only make such conclusions to depose popes, but if the popes remain, those conclusions magically become private and subjective.

1) Is Vatican 2 an ecuмenical council of the Conciliar Church or is it not?

2) Bishop de Mallerais said the Conciliar Church is a "schismatic church", and here you are saying every schismatic is separate from the Catholic Church. So, therefore, by your words and the bishop's, all members of the "Conciliar Church" are separate from the Catholic Church. How then do you propose someone could be in both at once?

3) Obviously. But I asked you how you determine an act of the Catholic Church from an act of the Conciliar Church, and "universality" was all you gave. So now your stance is, when it comes to discipline and law, if laymen privately interpret laws to be contrary to the common good, they're actually laws of the Conciliar Church? So once again, every single act of the Church is down to every layman to determine for himself whether it's truly an act of the Church or not.

4) Because individuals can teach novelties, of course, and Catholics should be wary of that. But at the end of the day, it's the Church that decides if a doctrine is true or heretical, and when the Church proposes an article of faith then it says that it's traditional(since dogma cannot charge). Where does any Saint say we ought to question what the Church teaches?

And here we go with more random irrelevant screeching about sedevacantism.

1) Is Vatican 2 an ecuмenical council of the Conciliar Church or is it not?

2) Bishop de Mallerais said the Conciliar Church is a "schismatic church", and here you are saying every schismatic is separate from the Catholic Church. So, therefore, by your words and the bishop's, all members of the "Conciliar Church" are separate from the Catholic Church. How then do you propose someone could be in both at once?

3) Obviously. But I asked you how you determine an act of the Catholic Church from an act of the Conciliar Church, and "universality" was all you gave. So now your stance is, when it comes to discipline and law, if laymen privately interpret laws to be contrary to the common good, they're actually laws of the Conciliar Church? So once again, every single act of the Church is down to every layman to determine for himself whether it's truly an act of the Church or not.

4) Because individuals can teach novelties, of course, and Catholics should be wary of that. But at the end of the day, it's the Church that decides if a doctrine is true or heretical, and when the Church proposes an article of faith then it says that it's traditional(since dogma cannot charge). Where does any Saint say we ought to question what the Church teaches?

And here we go with more random irrelevant screeching about sedevacantism.

1) In such measure as it teaches Catholicism, it is Catholic, and in such measure as it teaches novelty, it is conciliar.

2) Materially, they are members of the Catholic Church; formally, they are members of the conciliar church;

3) Nope.  Universality is all that’s required.  There is no private interpretation involved when the Church has already decided.

4) Was Liberius merely an “individual” when he taught/signed/agreed to a semi-Arian formula?  Was Athanasius exercising private interpretation when he refused to go along with it?