This ^^ is absurd and makes no sense actually. According to your reasoning, that heretic priest is no more than an atheist layman booted out of the Church to begin with, as such he could no more administer a valid sacrament than you can - because as a heretic he is no longer a member, no longer a Catholic and no longer even a priest. Heresy made him lose it all - to the detriment of the penitent. 

In reality, per Trent, the censured priest administers the sacrament just as validly and licitly as a non-censured priest, because once a Catholic priest, always a Catholic priest - "Thou art a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek."

Of course he is still a priest. I never said otherwise. 

Take the "Orthodox" for example. From your reasoning, they are not Catholic. They are outside the Church. They are not members. From the age of reason they clung to their schism and heresy. You said it yourself, they are not Catholic and are not members of the Church. Yet they can still validly, yet illicitly, confect holy orders and the Eucharist. 

I think you know that theirs is a different case altogether. As I quoted directly from Trent for the reference we are discussing, they said what they said. 

Why is it a different case? Can you explain? You will find pre-V2 theologians saying it is permissible for Catholics in danger of death to approach EO priests for valid and licit confession. The priest is not Catholic, he is outside the Church. But the salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church. Hence the permission. Trent says "all priests". EO priests are priests

Why is it a different case? Can you explain? You will find pre-V2 theologians saying it is permissible for Catholics in danger of death to approach EO priests for valid and licit confession. The priest is not Catholic, he is outside the Church. But the salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church. Hence the permission. Trent says "all priests". EO priests are priests

Yes, in danger of death is the only time that the Church permits receiving sacraments from EO priests because Church has never invalidated their Orders / sacraments for some reason, do you know why that is? 

But you make a good point.  I'll look into it more later or tomorrow when I have the time.

I'm not sure whether or not the Church *could* invalidate their orders or liturgy. So long as they profess those parts of the faith and properly administer those sacraments I don't think they could simply be declared invalid..for better or for worse.
 If it were possible, I at least think it would already have been done so

So far, I have only found it expressed clearly in the NO canon law. The link takes you directly to the pertinent canon which essentially says that  non-catholics can both administer and receive the sacraments "Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it" - big surprise.

I found this from 1948 where heretical and schismatic priests can do the job, and it differentiates between a Catholic priest and a schismatic priest (scroll down), which suggests heretics and schismatics are non-Catholic. Then again, he also quotes Suarez saying similar to what I previously quoted lol

The link has this lol.......
"Some go even further in presuming the good faith of schismatics. The late Bishop Neveu (4- 1946), Administrator Apostolic of Moscow though at the time he resided in Paris, issued the following statement in an instruction to the Army Chaplains:
“In virtue of his baptism every Orthodox becomes a member of the One and Universal Church. He therefore belongs de jure to the Catholic Church as long as he does not commit a formal act of schism, a mortal sin that is punished with excommunication, for excommunication is never incurred but for a mortal sin. When I am in the presence of an Orthodox Christian, I know that there are nine presumptions against one that this Christian has not committed the sin of schism. As it is morally certain that this Christian has not committed a mortal sin punishable with excommunication, and as I, as a Catholic priest, cannot affirm a priori that this baptized Christian is delinquens et con tumax (can. 2241), nor that he has committed a delictum ex ternum, grave, consummatum, cuм contumacia coniunctum (can. 2242, §1), which alone is punished with censure, I have no right to suppose, without strong evidence, that he is severed from the communion of the faithful.”

It goes on to say....

"The use of the words “all priests” makes the [Trent] canon very general, and according to the literal sense no one who has the sacerdotal character is excluded. This refers not only to priests of the Catholic Church but also to heretical and schismatical priests."

"...Whoever has been validly ordained to the priesthood, no matter how unbecomingly he may have subsequently fulfilled his sacred office, can validly and licitly grant absolution in danger of death, with the single exception of the restriction made in canon 884 regarding licitness. However, the Holy Office has given a particular response in this matter. A schismatic priest can absolve licitly in danger of death only if there is no Catholic priest present. The decision given in this response of the Holy Office is repeated by the authors."

I don't know either but I think She could invalidate them. I mean, the Sacraments belong to Holy Mother and no one else, She has total say-so over them. 

I suspect, though I will have to look into it more, the reason why the Church cannot just declare EO sacraments to be invalid is because the Sacraments are still the Church's..just stolen, if you will. The proper matter, form, And intention are still present. They do not "belong" to the EO, they just confect them illicitly.
An example of an infant baptised in a heretical sect again, it's a valid baptism, a sacrament of the Church. The infant is numbered as one of the faithful. Those who administer it mortally sin because they have tried to take the sacrament as their own, but it still belongs to the Church

*If* the Church could just declare EO sacraments invalid, I can only think of two reasons why She has not done so:

For the sake of the faithful in danger of death

And/or

To avoid the mess that would be invalid EO holy orders if the EO were ever to return to the Church

But I do suspect it is the former, that the Sacraments are still the Church's but have been "stolen", and cannot just be declared invalid

I'll have to respond to your first post later