you should be arguing that the Church is infallible when She institutes Her sacraments for Her faithful. Isn’t that a novel idea?

In other words, if the Church actually did promulgate the NO missae and the 1968 sacraments, there shouldn’t be any confusion nor dissension, we should all be going to the NO “mass” on Saturday night at 5:15pm sharp!

The old Archbishop of my area is still alive at 96 years old. 

Yeah but is he ordaining people?  No, so it’s beside the point. 

PV,

I haven’t been following the argument, but doctor of the Church, St. Francis de Sales, says extraordinary mission needs to be established by miracles as proof. I believe it’s chapter 3 of the first book, Mission, in his great book, The Catholic Controversy.

Does that help?

DR

If only Fr Pfeiffer had known!!!

Wow, GB! What is his name?

Either way, the argument of comparing liturgies against one another (i.e. Greek vs Coptic, or Russian vs Ambrosian) is only a matter the Church can resolve.  We have the infallible rules of Pope Pius XII on the form of the sacrament, and to brush this off and say, "well, it doesn't apply in this case" is extremely bold and not in a good way.

I've also read that those with ordinary mission must accept those as having an extraordinary mission (ie. not just miracles). Extraordinary mission isn't determined by those who are not those with ordinary mission.  That would mean acceptance is necessary by the current Novus Ordo hierarchy.  Unless the Traditional bishops can show they actually are the ones with ordinary mission.

Here is part of it:

I say, in the second place, that never must an extraordinary mission be received when disowned by the ordinary authority which is the Church of Our Lord. For (1.) we are obliged to obey our ordinary pastors under pain of being heathens and publicans (Matt. xviii. 17): - how then can we place ourselves under other discipline than theirs? Extraordinaries would come in vain, since we should be obliged to refuse to listen to them, in the case that they were, as I have said, disowned by the ordinaries. (II.) God is not the author of dissention, but of union and peace (I Cor. xiv. 33), principally amongst his disciples and Church ministers; as Our Lord clearly shows in the holy prayer he made to his Father in the last days of His mortal life. (John xvii.)

How then should he authorise two sorts of pastors, the one extraordinary, the other ordinary? As to the ordinary- it certainly is authorised, and as to the extraordinary we are supposing it to be; there would then be two different churches, which is contrary to the Most pure word of Our Lord, who has but one sole spouse, one sole dove, one sole perfect one (Cant. vi.) And how could that be a united flock which should be led by two shepherds, unknown to each other, into different pastures, with different calls and folds, and each of them expecting to have the whole. Thus would it be with the Church under a variety of pastors ordinary and extraordinary, dragged hither and thither into various sects. Or is Our Lord divided (I Cor. i. 13) either in himself or in his body, which is the Church?-no, in good truth. On the contrary, there is but one Lord, who has composed his mystic body with a goodly variety of members, a body compacted and fitly joined together by what every joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part (Eph. iv. 16).

Therefore to try to make in the Church this division of ordinary and extraordinary members is to ruin and destroy it. We must then return to what we said, that an extraordinary vocation is never legitimate where it is disapproved of by the ordinary.

I say, thirdly, that the authority of the extraordinary mission never destroys the ordinary, and is never given to overthrow it. Witness all the Prophets, who never set up altar against altar, never overthrew the priesthood of Aaron, never abolished the constitutions of the ѕуηαgσgυє.