CathInfo.com

Chill out Gladdy.  I was comparing the changes in the NREC to the New Rite of ordination.  Without valid bishops there are no valid priests.  Obviously, as a sede, I don't think any of these sacraments are certainly valid.

By the way, do you approach any of the traditional clergy's sacraments?

I have been away for the greater part of almost a decade.  I honestly do not know everyone's position as of now.

I do receive the Sacraments, but not as consistently as I would like. It is a question of geography more than anything.

FWIW, my replies are not necessarily directed at those I quote (the old CI was WAY easier to quote within posts...I have to modify every.single.post just to get the spacing I want...HeL-Lo-O, Matthew, why are things worse than a decade ago???).  I respond to points and hope to clarify some things for those who might be following the discussion.

LOL! So, according to Gladdy, "the combined value of the opinions of (+)ABL, (+)Fellay and (+)Schmidz [Fr. Schmidberger] (and (+)Williamson or whoever else you want to insert/add here) is...ZERO". Whereas your private judgment supposedly is infallibly binding and infinitely valuable? Typical sede-vacantist rubbish. 

There have been docuмented Eucharistic Miracles in Masses offered by Priests ordained in the new rite. This fact alone shows that the new rite is not always invalid, contrary to sedevacantist polemicists. 

Second, the study showed the new rite is derived from two Eastern Rites (specifically, the Coptic and the West Syrian), the validity of which is evidently not subject to doubt. Fr. Pierre Marie is careful to distinguish the prudence of the reform (was it a good idea?) with per se validity. You've made no reasonable rebuttals to the same, nor have you even given the slightest indication that you read the study and understood the reasons for its conclusions. 

Yes, I agree and it is dogmatically true that the Church cannot give anything intrinsically evil; just as it is dogmatically true that St. Peter must have Perpetual Successors; that is for certain. Yet, there is also a human side to the issue, and the ideas of churchmen may not always be perfectly prudent; no rite approved by the Church can be sacrilegious or heretical. But different rites can be more or less good, according to the care taken, on the human side, in promulgating them. 

Do you really not understood the difference between observing the entire ceremony of Baptism and saying only the words "I baptize you ...". You absurdly and arbitrarily deem the rite to be entirely invalid, yet claim others cannot legitimately deduce, by reason illumined by the Faith, that it is certainly valid but only objectively inferior, in conferring Grace.

SimpleMan, sure, there's no hurry. Take your time and go through the study at your leisure. To answer your question; yes, if the rite of ordination to the Priesthood were invalid, the new Bishops would not be true Bishops either. But most traditional Priests don't consider the new rite of ordination to be invalid. For some of the above reasons, I agree with that. 

God Bless.