Examples aside from those mentioned above are the banning of gothic vestments, the rule against any member of RCI being a Scotist, conditionally confirming those confirmed by a priest in the Eastern Rites (which has always been considered valid,) etc.

.

I never heard of these. Do you remember where you learned of this? Do you have a source for this?

.

I never heard of these. Do you remember where you learned of this? Do you have a source for this?

PASTORAL DIRECTORY OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC INSTITUTE
[color=rgba(11, 57, 84, 0.5)]July 7, 2017 [color=rgba(11, 57, 84, 0.5)]romancatholicinstitute[/color][/font][/size][/color]

---

I. Administration of Sacraments
General Principles
The administration of the sacraments requires not only valid ordination but jurisdiction as well. Sacramental jurisdiction is sought and obtained in ordinary times from the bishop of the diocese. However, in these times of the vacancy of the episcopal sees owing to the promotion of heresy, jurisdiction to distribute the sacraments comes from the principle of epicheia, which is the favorable interpretation of the will of the lawmaker in the absence of the lawmaker. This principle, therefore, demands two things in order that it can be validly cited and used for sacramental jurisdiction: (1) the absence of the lawmaker, and (2) a reasonable cause by which to presume the permission of the absent lawmaker. If either of these conditions should be lacking, then epicheia could not be used for sacramental jurisdiction.
The priests of the Institute hold that both of these conditions of epicheia are present. For they hold for certain that the Vatican II hierarchy is a false hierarchy, and does not have the power to teach, rule, and sanctify the Church. Therefore the legislator of sacramental jurisdiction is absent. They hold, as well, that those who repudiate Vatican II and the Vatican II hierarchy would be deprived of sacraments if the priests of the Institute failed to provide them. Therefore the reasonable cause exists to presume that the legislator — Christ the Head of the Church and a true pope or true local bishop — would desire that he distribute the sacraments.
Consequently, the Institute holds that its priests may administer sacraments legitimately only to those who have repudiated the Vatican II religion. It is not in accordance with reason that a priest, who is using epicheia to justify his sacramental jurisdiction, distribute sacraments to those who accept the authority of the Novus Ordo hierarchy. All ecclesiological principles require that one may approach for sacraments only those priests who are authorized by the true hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Therefore, if someone recognizes the Vatican II “pope” and “bishops” as the true Catholic hierarchy, then these same ecclesiological principles logically require the priest of the Institute to refuse sacraments to them. For there is no reasonable cause present to distribute sacraments, by epicheia, to those who logically should be going to the Vatican II hierarchy for sacraments. Furthermore, there is no reasonable cause for those who adhere to the Vatican II hierarchy to approach a priest for sacraments who holds that the legislator (the local bishop) is absent, owing to promulgation of heresy.
In other words, neither Christ nor the Church can authorize at the same time both the Novus Ordo clergy and the traditionalist clergy to distribute sacraments. Only one of these distributes legitimately; the other distributes illegitimately. Only one distributes as having jurisdiction from the true hierarchy of the Catholic Church; the other distributes without authorization and jurisdiction from the true hierarchy of the Catholic Church.
Reason and logic always demand consistency. Inconsistency is a sure sign of error. Whatever act is not in accordance with reason, furthermore, is a sin.
The refusal of sacraments to adherents to the Vatican II hierarchy, therefore, must not be construed as an accusation of public sin, or of public heresy, or any other delict, but simply as a moral consequence of the their recognition of the false Vatican II hierarchy as the true Catholic hierarchy. To administer sacraments to them would be contrary to reason, and would therefore eliminate one of the necessary conditions of epicheia, which would, in turn, ruin the foundation of the priest’s jurisdiction in administering the sacraments to such persons.
Practical Application of the Principles
1. The clergy of the Institute shall not administer any sacraments to those who deny either the Baptism of Blood or the Baptism of Desire or to those who promote these ideas.
2. The clergy of the Institute shall not administer any sacraments to those who frequent the Novus Ordo Mass, unless they first manifest an intention of repudiating Vatican II and its reforms.
3. The clergy of the Institute shall not administer any sacraments to those who are invalidly married, or who are living as husband and wife after having received marriage annulments from the Novus Ordo, the Society of Saint Pius X, or any other person or entity.
4. The clergy of the Institute shall not administer any sacraments to those who frequent a Mass, even traditional, which is offered under the auspices of or with the approval of the Novus Ordo hierarchy, nor to those who frequent the traditional Mass in which members of the Novus Ordo hierarchy are mentioned in the Te igitur prayers of the Canon of the Mass, nor to those who recognize the Novus Ordo hierarchy as having the power to teach, rule, and sanctify the Catholic Church.
5. The clergy of the Institute shall not administer any sacraments to those who obstinately hold that the position of recognizing the Novus Ordo hierarchy as having the power to teach, rule, and sanctify the Catholic Church has theological probability, and may be legitimately held.
6. The clergy of the Institute shall not administer any sacraments to those who are gravely immodest in their dress, or who in any other way are guilty of grave public sin.
7. In all cases of refusal of the sacraments, except in those involving grave public sin, warning should be given to those to whom sacraments shall be denied in a discreet and reasonable manner, and should be given the opportunity to repent of their sins or to remove the impediments to receiving the sacraments.
8. Those who are returning from the Novus Ordo to the beliefs and practices of Roman Catholicism may not receive sacraments until (1) they manifest their resolve to utterly repudiate Vatican II and its reforms, (2) it is determined that they are sufficiently instructed in the Catholic Faith, and (3) are free from any impediments to receiving the sacraments, particularly invalid marriages and cohabitation, or any other public sin.
II. Preaching
9. The clergy of the Institute shall preach a sermon on all Sundays and holy days of obligation, unless there is a serious reason whereby it is inconvenient or impossible. They may also preach a sermon on other occasions.
10. The clergy of the Institute shall preach at least four times a year concerning the principles of Catholic resistance to Modernism as contained in the Theological Directory of the Institute.
11. The clergy of the Institute shall follow the instructions of the Superior General concerning the subjects of their sermons.
12. The clergy should preach for not less than ten minutes on a Sunday or holy day of obligation, and not more than 30 minutes.
13. The clergy of the Institute shall make serious preparation of their sermons, and shall be zealous in learning, either by reading books or seeking advice from others, the skill of delivering a sermon well.
III. Sacrament of Matrimony
14. The clergy of the Institute shall observe the general instructions concerning Matrimony which shall be provided by the Superior General.
15. The clergy of the Institute shall not, under any circuмstances, declare a marriage to be null, whether in a public or private manner, except in those cases in which the nullity of the marriage is certain from docuмentary proof.
16. The clergy of the Institute shall not permit those who are not validly married to act as husband and wife toward each other. They may permit an invalidly married couple to remain together, provided that (1) there is a serious reason for their remaining together; (2) the invalidity of the marriage is not publicly known; (3) the invalidly married couple promise to act as brother and sister toward each other, and in fact take the necessary means to observe the promise; (4) there is no danger of scandal.
17. The clergy of the Institute shall insure that the couples to be married be properly instructed according to the Syllabus of Marriage Instruction.
IV. Parish Bulletins
18. The clergy of the Institute shall place in their parish bulletin all information which is required by the Superior General.
V. Design and Decoration of Churches
19. The clergy of the Institute must submit for approval to the Superior General any design for construction or decoration of churches, and shall follow the instructions of the Superior General in these matters.
VI. Devotions
20. The clergy of the Institute shall promote only those devotions which are officially approved by the Catholic Church. All devotional practices must be approved by the Superior General.
VII. Apparitions and Private Revelations
21. Only those apparitions and private revelations which have been approved by the Catholic Church may be promoted by the members of the Institute. All members shall follow the instructions of the Superior General in these matters.
22. The members of the Institute shall avoid any fanaticism or obsession with apparitions or private revelations, and shall not speak to the laity about apparitions or private revelations which are not approved by the Catholic Church.
23. The members of the Institute shall avoid an excessive or obsessive interest in matters that pertain to the end of the world.
VIII. Sacraments to Be Conferred Again Absolutely or Sub Conditione
24. As a general rule, no sacrament should be repeated sub conditione except where there is a positive doubt concerning its validity.
25. Ordinations to the priesthood conferred in English or Latin according to the reformed rite in use in the Novus Ordo during or after 1968, are considered doubtful.
26. Consecrations to the episcopacy performed according to the reformed rite of consecration during or after 1968 are considered invalid.
27. Confirmations conferred in English or Latin according to the reformed rite during or after 1971 are considered doubtful.
28. Baptisms conferred by Novus Ordo clergy during or after 1990 must be verified as having been done correctly. If positive proof of the correctness of the rite should be lacking, then the baptism must be conferred again sub conditione.
29. Baptisms conferred by protestant sects are always considered doubtful, and the sacrament of Baptism must be conferred again sub conditione.
30. Baptisms conferred by Eastern schismatics are considered valid, unless they have been conferred by clergy who are not subject to the schismatic hierarchy, or have been conferred by those subject to the Russian patriarchate, in which cases positive eyewitness proof of validity must be provided.
31. Confirmations done by Eastern rite uniates and by eastern schismatics must be conferred again sub conditione, unless they have been performed by a bishop.
IX. Exorcisms
32. The clergy of the Institute shall not presume to perform any public or private exorcisms, apart from those contained in the rite of Baptism and in the rites of the blessings of things, such as holy water, without the permission of the Superior General.

Source: https://romancatholicinstitute.org/pastoral-directory-of-the-roman-catholic-institute/

.

I never heard of these. Do you remember where you learned of this? Do you have a source for this?

The quotes from the RCI website which another user posted above have the relevant portions concerning vestments and Confirmations highlighted.  I dont have a source handy for the validity of Confirmations done by Eastern Rite priests but it is a tradition which likely goes all the way back to the apostles.  Since Baptism, Holy Communion, and Chrismation (their term for Confirmation) are all conferred the same day upon infants and converts in the Eastern Rites, their priests have been habitually granted the faculties to perform Confirmation.  Imagine how many bishops would be necessary otherwise!  

Regarding the forbidding of Scotism, I have not been able to find a quote online.  I am unsure whether their internal policies were ever listed online but I had this particular policy confirmed to me by a member who I dont wish to name.

It would be gravely forbidden and sacrilegious to confirm or conditionally confirm an eastern rite Catholic who was already confirmed in their rite. There is no doubt about the validity here, so it cannot be lawfully done, and if done it would be a sacrilege.

What arguments does RCI use to do this?

I agree with you entirely, and I do not know how they attempt to justify this official practice.  Perhaps there have been instances where the Chrism was obtained from novus ordo "bishops?"  Or perhaps they doubt the delegated jurisdiction of the priests to confirm since their bishops lack ordinary jurisdiction?  This one doesnt seem likely since they acknowledge the validity of byzantine confirmations when conferred by a bishop.  I dont know. 

In defense of +Sanborn, I believe that all priests from MHT seminary do not have to become a part of the RCI.  The rules are only for those who choose to. Please correct me if i am wrong.

So in the meantime, who are some good bishops and priests to listen to, who help more with the formation of our personal souls as oppose of fighting the Crisis, which there is no current solution?  I don't want the rhetoric of listen to me because I am right. I don't want to be told you're sinning if you go to this group's Mass.  I think it is time for Catholics to fortify themselves.

Amen to that!!!

I agree with you entirely, and I do not know how they attempt to justify this official practice.  Perhaps there have been instances where the Chrism was obtained from novus ordo "bishops?"  Or perhaps they doubt the delegated jurisdiction of the priests to confirm since their bishops lack ordinary jurisdiction?  This one doesnt seem likely since they acknowledge the validity of byzantine confirmations when conferred by a bishop.  I dont know.

It doesn't make sense, if the validity is contingent on delegated jurisdiction, then who delegated RCI to confirm?  

It doesn't make sense, if the validity is contingent on delegated jurisdiction, then who delegated RCI to confirm? 

The delegation is required for a priest to confirm validly. The bishop has the power from his consecration.