+AMDG+
SAINT CUNEGUNDA, EMPRESS (1033 A.D.)


Apstolicae Curae states:

9. To all rightly estimating these matters it will not be difficult to understand why, in the Letters of Julius III, issued to the Apostolic Legate on 8 March 1554, there is a distinct mention,
   first of those who, "rightly and lawfully promoted," might be maintained in their orders:
   and then of others who, "not promoted to Holy Orders" might "be promoted if they were found to be worthy and fitting subjects".

For it is clearly and definitely noted, as indeed was the case, that there were two classes of men;
   the first of those who had really received Holy Orders, either before the secession of Henry VIII,
   or, if after it, and by ministers infected by error and schism, still according to the accustomed Catholic rite;
the second, those who were initiated according to the Edwardine Ordinal, who on that account could not be "promoted", since they had received an ordination which was null.


In the AFD the word "legally" was attached to promulgated as it pertains to the NO Sacraments.

Is that an attempt by the NO to gain a "legal" status of the NO Sacraments?  By being recognized by the SSPX?

Meaning if someone ~ SSPX ~ who is "legal and valid", and has adhered to the Laws and Traditions of the Church, ascertains the legality and validity of one who is illegal and invalid, doesn't that make the illegal and invalid, legal and valid?

There is significance to attaching the two words to each other, no matter how much one downplays it.