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.

Says the poster who routinely uses his private judgment yet still professes submission to his pope.

Don't address me as Gladdy, you kewl-aid-guzzling chump.  ALL of our opinions are private, Jackuss Maximuss, from the long-dead ABL to you and me. He's been dead THIRTY YEARS.  Get over it!

I am not actually SV, but Your Ignorance just went ahead a presumed...shocking.

Please quote my words that claim NO Baptism is invalid? Your reading comprehension is lacking, but was likely affected by your undisciplined emotions as you read my words, the vast majority of which you clearly misunderstood.

If you ever want to have a calm, rational exchange, I am here.  Godspeed.

What is your position then?

Vatican II and the NOM were done on purpose by enemies of the Catholic Church.

+?Vigano has finally come to realize this.

Here's a link docuмenting five Eucharistic Miracles. https://www.churchpop.com/2015/06/28/5-extraordinary-eucharistic-miracles-with-pictures/ Four, I believe, were in the traditional Mass (earlier centuries) and one was with a Priest ordained in the new rite.

Transubstantiation is a Miracle requiring the Power of God Himself. The devil can no more transubstantiate than he can create. I have a book by Fr. Mueller (before photographic/dna evidence etc, but based on eyewitness testimony) where Father says these Eucharistic Miracles are reason enough for non-Catholics to join the Church. Father also uses them as proofs of the Real Presence against Protestants. Vatican I says Miracles are supernatural motives of credibility that establish the Truth of the Catholic Religion.

Reason has a role in examining and investigating what has gone wrong in the last 50 years. But Faith is a greater light than reason, and the truths of Faith are more certain than the judgments of reason. If an apparent judgment of reason contradicts a certain truth of Faith, it is the former that is mistaken, not the latter. We will disagree, I suppose, till we have a holy Pope who will settle it. 

Our Lady in Quito, Who prophesied these times, spoke of the "Prelate who will restore the spirit of Her Priests", a statement which in its plain sense itself suggests the Priests are not invalid, but have lost their spirit; which, in due time, will be restored by the Holy Pope. 

Gladius Veritatis, are you a sedeprivationist? I am speaking of the principle by which we can know one rite is inferior to the other. There is a portion of every sacramental rite essential to validity; the rest, as Fr. G-L explains, belongs to the "integrity". If prayers that compose the integrity of the rite are removed, we can legitimately conclude, I would argue, that such rites are objectively inferior. 

Vatican II and the NOM were done on purpose by enemies of the Catholic Church.

+?Vigano has finally come to realize this.

I only heard of him within the last six months (been on a lengthy sabbatical).

That it took him FIFTY years, all as a grown man, to see this is why my opinion of him, while positive, is far from warm and fuzzy or quasi-salvific.

Xavier
Any assessments that the current rite comes from the West Syriac churches or Coptic is pure BS, having attended ordinations in both there's no comparison. The argument iys false. There may be parallels with original copies of Greek ordinations, which could mean the ordinations are valid, but there's a large corpus of discussion of how ordinations are done within the Latin Church, but no discussion about making up ordinations from scratch and appealing to something done in another church as if it had some part in why it was composed.
There are two arguments in favor
1 The ordination rite was given by 'the church' and the church would fail without priests
Or
2 Throw it into the category of the doctrine of unity

Wherever the bishop appears let the congregation be present; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful either to baptise or to hold an "agape" without the bishop; but whatever he approve, this is also pleasing to God, that everything which you do may be secure and valid.1

#2 still doesn't answer the question

Reason has a role in examining and investigating what has gone wrong in the last 50 years. But Faith is a greater light than reason, and the truths of Faith are more certain than the judgments of reason. If an apparent judgment of reason contradicts a certain truth of Faith, it is the former that is mistaken, not the latter. We will disagree, I suppose, till we have a holy Pope who will settle it.

Our Lady in Quito, Who prophesied these times, spoke of the "Prelate who will restore the spirit of Her Priests", a statement which in its plain sense itself suggests the Priests are not invalid, but have lost their spirit; which, in due time, will be restored by the Holy Pope.

Of course reason has a role and a substantial one at that.  Sedeplenists have all-but-neutered that role, acting as if we must all deny the obvious until the order of law catches up to the order of fact (a lag which is constant, normal and unavoidable due to the way reality works and the way fact and law are related).

Our Lady of Good Success, to whom you refer, could just as easily be taken to be referring to however many real priests exist at the time of resurgence.  Such a group need not necessarily include those of the NO variety. Frankly, many presumably-valid priests in Traddieland could benefit from a massive restoration of spirit, so to speak.