The change in the language of the Preface (quoted above) reflects a move from direct and clear signification in the traditional Rite toward indirect and ambiguous signification in the New Rite.

And you have the "probable opinion"/"positive doubt" issue backwards. There is no doubt at all about the traditional Rite. It is valid. It is not my "probable opinion" that this is the case. It is dogmatically certain. This is what the Church has always taught. I don't have to prove this.

You are the one holding a "probable opinion" that the Novus Ordo is valid. You think your opinion is probable because, as you say, Jesus would not "leave us orphans" (which is true but you misapply the phrase to this case). The burden of proof that the Novus Ordo is valid is on you. Until you can prove this with a dogmatic statement from the Church, you theory can be nothing more than a "probable opinion."

The Church says that I don't need to prove my "opinion" that the New Rites are invalid. The fact that they are significantly different from the Traditional Rites casts sufficient, "positive doubt" on the New Rites. I don't need to have certainty about the New Rites. I am required to avoid them simply because they signify something substantially different from the traditional Rites.

So, in order to follow the requirements of Catholic moral theology, we must ordinarily receive the Sacraments from a minister who is certainly valid (the traditionally-ordained Priest), and only in extraordinary circuмstances should we consider receiving Sacraments from a minister who is only probably valid. 

But you flip this on its head because of your "leave us orphans" theory. You naively accept that the Church (the true Roman Catholic Church) is identical to the entity infiltrated by Freemasons who inexplicably changed the traditional Rites. You are living in a false reality.

The Novus Ordo is a test, allowed by God. You are failing that test because of your human attachments and lack of clear reasoning. Please pray about this and ask for God to give you the humility to see the Truth before it is too late.

Borat continues to deliberate conflate terms, and invert their meaning, as do the SSPX in their overall gaslighting attacks.

Any kind of prudent doubt suffices to administer conditional ordination, per Canon Law.  That threshold is quite low and excludes merely irrational doubts, and negative doubt.  If a reasonable, intelligent, well educated Catholic priest or bishop concludes merely that, "well, they've monkeyed with the Rites, including the essential form declared by Pope Pius XII, in addition to removing all mention of sacrifice from the Ordination Rite, which Pope Leo XIII taught invalidated the Anglican Rite, and the Rite of Episcopal Consecration is barely recognizable ... so give who these people are, the same ones that bought is everything it is that caused is to break off from the Conciliar Church, let's just say I don't trust these same bad actors not to have vitiated the Rite"

Ignore the nonsense from SSPX where they conflate the grave sin of repeating the character Sacraments with a conditional administration thereof.  In the latter case, there is no sacrilege, and as long as you have some reasonable ground to conclude that they might be invalid, conditional ordination is at the very least permissible.

So, as pointed out many times, and ignored by the Troll Borat ...

Worst case scenario for the ones holding to the positive doubt position, if they're wrong, the bishop has wasted 30 minutes of his time, but, even then, the faithful whose consciences are troubled by the New Rites can be put at ease, and there's zero way that it would be sinful and condemned by God to engage in this practice for that reason alone, especially when there is in fact something there, and not just irrational negative doubt, i.e. the worst case is that you make an error in judgment, which would most certainly be offset by the motive of charity, echoing where St. Paul said that he would refrain from eating meat offered to idols if only to avoid scandalizing the weak.  If even in your great wisdom you consider the faithful to be wrong, as St. Paul did about eating meat, charity alone would require undertaking the conditional ordinations.

Worst case scenario for the ones holding to the "undoubtedly valid" position?  Faithful receive invalid Sacraments, possible souls lost, and grave damnable sins on the part of those clergy who attempted to force their decision on the consciences of the faithful.  In fact, even if they're RIGHT, they would still be guilty of grave sins against charity by subjecting many faithful souls to troubled consciences.

So, this debate here is 1000% NO CONTEST in favor of a requirement to perform conditional ordinations.  Period.  There no argument.

... unless the entire reason you're taking this position and forcing it on others' consciences is because first and foremost you cannot jeopardize your relationship with the Modernists.  Well, in that case, it's even a graver sin.  Even IF I believed that it was worthwhile to pursue some talks with the Modernists, that's not worth throwing the faithful under the bus.  You can just go to the Modernists and say, "Well, many of the faithful are troubled by the changes.  Take it of leave it.  Feel free to call of talks.  Maybe you shouldn't have messed around with the Rites for no particular reason other than to appease the Protestants."

Make no mistake that there are infiltrators and Modernist / Masonic / Communist / Jєωιѕн agents driving this agenda, which goes against all common sense, basic reason, and charity ... or else bishop / priests who have been compromised by Epstein operations.

We had a young seventeen-year-old young lady who was just conditionally baptized this last week our traditional chapel.  She says that the custom in Oregon where she is from is to say, "We baptize you..."  Apparently, that is the NO thing out there among some of the priests.  I bet some of the SSPX crowd would chime in, "Don't worry, its valid." 

Yep ... since its inception the Novus Ordites have had this general attitude of being "creative", where unless you can adlib stuff for the situation, then you were stale and lame.  Such attitudes are curtailed by using a Sacred Language as well as having the mentality of requiring formal adherence to ritual.  Conciliarists had adopted the Prot-heretical attitude where the Sacraments are not some "magic" things (aka don't work ex opere operato but only ex opere operantis).  For them, when you get baptized, it's more about your own personal dispositions, repentance, etc. and the water is just symbolic of it.  So who cares what you say, right?  This idea of there needing to be a fixed essential "form" for the Sacrament was dismissed as medieval mumbo jumbo and superstition.  In addition, the Novus Ordo has been polluted by this mentality that the priest is just a PRESIDER and a representative of the COMMUNITY, and it's the latter that accomplishes or effects what is going on.  I've had Jesuit priests (valid) tell me that there's no Mass if just the priest offers it privately, without a congregation.  Similarly, the Sacrament of Confession was regularly characterized as being reconciled with the COMMUNITY, and it's the COMMUNITY that's welcoming you back, i.e. where a "priest" could easily say "We absolve you ..." or just "We forgive you ..." or "Welcome Back ..."  Now, this attitude is probably slightly less likely with the Rites for Holy Orders, but not necessarily, as I've heard of bishops messing with the essential form of "confirmation", and can easliy see one of them tampering with Holy Orders to make it more "meaningful" or "relevant".

I personally believe that any and all Sacraments performed by the Conciliar Church are open to conditional re-administration.  Now, that might be a case where some investigation might be in order, where maybe you check the background of the priest and see if he was PRONE to that sort of thing, but even then you don't know, as many priests had phases, where they went Hippie for a while, and then came back.  Given the pervasive trainwreck the Novus Ordo is, I think that conditionals of any Sacrament they confer would be acceptable ... AND you could even use those notorious incidents of invalid Baptisms to "smooth over" any talks with Rome if that's you're motivation, just referring them to those notorious cases and saying that you just don't have the time and resources to go investigate every Sacrament.  This tendency in the Conciliar Church combined with a legitimate complaint regarding lack of resources to do a proper investigation, and in many cases the priests / bishops are now deceased, and no videos exist, so there's no reason to impose this burden.

Let's say we heard of this Protestant sect that sometimes validly baptized, but very often did not.  If somone came over from that sect, would you be required to investigate their ceremony?  Who has the time for that, and then even if you did spend the time and effort, there's a good chance you'd never get to the truth of it anyway.  No, the fact that that sect played loosey goosey with their "Sacraments" suffices to create a prudent doubt.

Now, if someone came over from the Orthodox, where they're pretty strict about adhering to their Rites ... and they believe that the form + matter are required to confect a Sacrament ... that's a different story.

I bet some of the SSPX crowd would chime in, "Don't worry, its valid." 

Perhaps it's the same ones who don't believe that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.  But, yeah ... I'd worry.

Now, does this mean that everyone baptized in the Novus Ordo should rush out to get a conditional Baptism?  Probably not.  And that would create cascading problems where, then do you get conditional Confirmation, Holy Orders etc.  If you knew, for instance, that the priest who baptized you was a "by the book" kindof guy and probably wouldn't mess with the form, you'd probably be OK (short of some negative doubt about whether he botched it).  But if you were baptized by one of the foaming-at-the-mouth heretics, then I would seriously consider it.  I myself was baptized Traditional, but a couple of my younger siblings were baptized Novus Ordo, but the priest who baptized them was conservative, walked around with a cassock and was often seen praying the Rosary ... and I never once knew him to deviate from any of the NO Rites.  But then after him came a couple of flaming Modernists who clearly did not believe in the Real Presence, among other heresies.

.....
First of all, the point is NOT the priesthood ordinations, but the bishop consecrations. Invalid bishops -> invalid priests.

Here is a PDF of the episcopal consecrations:

https://de.scribd.com/doc/15442729/Comparison-of-Old-and-New-Consecration-Rites

The important part is on page 25 and 26:

.....

What does Pius XII say?
The form is the words determining the application of the matter, by which the sacramental effects are univocally signified -- namely the power of Orders and the grace of the Holy Spirit." In other words the words of the form must specify what power of orders is given and that the grace of the Holy Ghost is given.

Yes, the Episcopal Rite does call on the "governing spirit" (page 25). But that alone doesn't make it valid because you need to say WHAT you are intending the Holy Spirit to do (Fulfil in thy priest... ). BOTH have to be invoked to be valid, and this is in EVERY rite, even the Eastern. So the "it's a new rite, you can't apply SO to it" argument from Fr. Hesse doesn't count.

1. Does the New Rite call on the Holy Spirit?

- "bless him [the elected] with spiritual power" (that's not the Holy Spirit)
- "pour out thy holy blessing" (not the Holy Spirit either)
- "by thy gracious word, bless him" (not the Holy Spirit again)
- "From the beginning of the Church you have chosen ministers" (Protestant understanding of "bishop" as administrator)
- "pour out the governing spirit" (page 25 - okay let's presume this means Holy Spirit)

Let's presume "yes".

2. Now, what powers do they call on the "governing spirit" for? What should the Holy Spirit do?

- "Through the power of the spirit who gives the grace of high priesthood" - (okay let's presume they somehow mean the Holy Spirit, okay let's go...)
- "grant him the power to forgive sins" (the bishop-elect, if he is a valid priest, already has this power, useless and confusing prayer)
- "grant him the power to assign ministries" (that's not the intention to make a Catholic bishop, but a Protestant minister)
- "grant him the power to loose every bond given by the apostles etc." (that's not the proper power of a bishop either!)

So, the New Rite, while maybe, calling on the "power of the spirit" as Holy Spirit, it completely misses the essential: to define WHAT you're calling on the Holy Spirit for (if you're calling him at all)! It mentions the word "office of bishop", yes, but Anglicans have "bishops" too, with invalid orders. So the word alone doesn't make it valid.

The best argument against this is "the context form can supplement", but in the New Rite, that makes it even worse, since the entire explanation of "what is the purpose of a bishop" (present in the Old Rite) or even the interrogation "are you even Catholic" for the bishop is abolished. The only thing that is left in in terms of duties of a bishop is "obeying the pope" (obviously they had to leave that in, can't miss a psychological jab against those 1988 schismatics).

If the new rite just said "God please pour out the Holy Spirit to consecrate this guy a bishop, so that he has the power to ordain priests to continue the sacrifice of Christ" - it may be very colloquial, but still definitely valid. The best explanation is that they are mentioning the "high priesthood", but that's just a regular priest in the context of the Old Testament. A "high priest" is not a bishop in the Old Testament. So even the best-case interpretation fails.

Throughout the entire rite, they refer to the bishop as a "guide of the flock", "guardian" and "minister-appointer". Then they, for some reason mention "loosening bonds" and "assigning ministries" as one of the bishops core tasks, which any Catholic would understand that a regular priest already has this power.

If someone is spazzing out about the Thuc bishops being definitely invalid because of some rumored "withheld intention" to Guerard des Lauriers, but at the same time accepting Novus Ordo "ministers" as definitely valid because some liberal SSPX priest said "well they're calling on the Holy Spirit, so it must be valid" - then we've hit hyprocrisy central.

Fr. Hesse only defended the new Rite of priesthood ordination (which only has two sentences changed and none of the essential form). So yes, Fr. Hesse was a valid priest, as he was ordained by an Old-Rite bishop with the correct intention. But here, we are not talking about "ut" and "et", we are talking about a rite, where 100% of the prayers are completely rewritten and the bishop is consistently mentioned as having the power to "appoint people" (Protestant intention).



The strongest pro-NO argument ist 3.1. - "Summi Sacerdotii" (high priesthood) appears in the Catechism of the Council of Trent as a synonym for "high priest / bishop".

I've read through what each and all had to say since Sunday and while, I will touch upon one or two aspects of your arguments in later posts, Balwin the IV's post is the most deserving of consideration.

Your premise is as follows: "First of all, the point is NOT the priesthood ordinations, but the bishop consecrations. Invalid bishops -> invalid priests."

Ok, so let us unpack this: Is the new Episcopal Rite invalid?

The SSPX teach that it IS valid because it closely resembles the Eastern Church Rite which is valid and because it does contain the two essential elements as Pope Pius XII specified.

Now, you agree that the Holy Ghost is being evoked in the new Rite. "So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit" is a accepted term used by the Eastern Rite Church and it is immediately qualified in the Rite by the following definition: "...the spirit given by (Christ) to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple...".

What you do query is whether the second essential element is present. Yet it seems clear to me that it is: "upon this chosen one" which in other places makes clear means 'bishop-elect'. For example "My brother, are you resolved by the grace of the Holy Spirit to discharge to the end of your life the office the apostles entrusted to us (bishops), which we now pass on to you by the laying on the hands?" and "You have chosen your servant  for the office of bishop" and "through the Spirit who who gives the grace of the High priesthood." All of these examples including "so now pour out upon this chosen one" are found within the Preface (the Consecration prayer).

We all agree that the New Rite is not a patch on the Old Rite; that not only is it missing many beautiful prayers and ceremonies but it lacks the clarity of the Old rite and is so stripped down it appears almost more Protestant than Catholic.

 However, the Church is her great wisdom, has a safety net to dispel certain doubt: From the very beginning Christ said to his bishops "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matt. 18:18). What this means is that the Church has the God-given authority to alter and change the matter and form, and it is Her and Her alone, that determines what constitutes as a valid or invalid form. Writes Pope Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis (No.4): "...that which the Church has established, she can also change and abrogate" keeping in mind, as the council of Trent qualifies, that the substance laid down in scripture by Christ, is always to be maintained within these changes. (This scriptural, pre-determined, substance, of course, applies only to Baptism and the Holy Eucharist). For the other five Sacraments, Christ has left it to the supreme authority of His Church to decide which words and signs would effect the sacramental grace.

This brings us to the most important element of this issue: the authority of the Church. The words of the form (the substance) mean exactly what the ETERNAL Church means them to mean regardless of how you, I or a modernist understands them. In other words, in terms of validity, the authority of the Catholic Church ensures that any ambiguity in the official form will always mean what it has always been intended to mean in a Catholic sense and understanding.

This is the core reason Pope Leo XIII ruled against the Angelica Rites - their very religion did not recognize the authority of the Roman Catholic Church and therefore their ambiguity did not confirm to any Catholic sense; it was not covered by this safety net.

Because of Christ's promise to protect His Church, the Freemasons who infiltrated did not have the power to change the validity of the Mass or the Sacraments but they did secure the power to 'sabotage' them and make then appear less Catholic in order to lead the faithful into either loosing their understanding of the true faith or doubting their validity which was the next best thing. It was a master plan.

I have read the 2016 sermon by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais - which was very good - so I will comment on that when I have more time.

I have read the 2016 sermon by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais - which was very good - so I will comment on that when I have more time.

So far, whenever any of the Sede minded posters refer to the 'Old' SPPX in support of their "invalid" stance with regards to New Rite Ordinations etc, they have asked me to read what Fr. Peter Scott of the SSPX had to say on the subject or His Lordship Bishop Tissier de Mallarais. So, in the name of fairness, I went on a hunt, and well, it proved to be a rather unsuccessful endevour. Perhaps these posters would like to share some concrete evidence that they have that is not on the internet?

For starters the only information I could pull up about Fr. Scott is the following: "Fr. Peter Scott has pointed out that a positive doubt about the per se validity of the 1968 form of ordination as promulgated does not exist, for the strictly essential part of the form is practically identical to that defined by Pope Pius XII in 1947. It may be invalid in specific cases, he said, owing to defect of intention or poor vernacular translation. " This is a comment summarising Fr. Scott's outline in the 2007 edition of the Angelus.

As for His Lordship, the only one I could find was his Ordination Sermon of June 29, 2016, published by the SSPX UK as an "unofficial translation". Now this sermon is expressed with great clarity. He opens with "...We remember the beautiful words of Pius X 'To restore all things in Christ'...especially by the Catholic priesthood." He then proceeds to outline what a priest is - a mediator between God and man - and how this is symbolized in the ordination ceremony. It is when he begins to outline the three rites that are performed after the candidate has been ordained a priest, that the New Ordination Rite is first mentioned: "...my dear faithful, this wonderful anointing of the priest's hands was (tampered with - 'truque') by the conciliar Church for the past 46 years. Paul VI instituted other words which do not speak of consecration or sanctification. This is why we preciously safeguard the treasure of these ordination prayers." This was followed later by " But this prayer (concerning the Chalice and Paten), once again, was tampered with...we cannot accept this new, tampered with ordination rite, which casts doubts on the validity of numerous (NOTE not all) ordinations according to the new rite....this new rite of ordination is not Catholic."

Strong words indeed! And he was right in every thing he said. But what he did not say was that the New Ordination Rite itself was invalid. The thrust of his comparison was to show how the modernists had stripped back a beautiful teaching rite, rich in symbolism, to the 'bare-bones' of what the Rite was enacting - which in turn, has lead to many priests losing a sense of who and what they are; stripping it back to the point it no longer projects a clear Catholic spirit. There is no doubt that His Lordship had doubts. But, as far as I have found, he has never declared them positive doubts. And he has always held that the Popes since 1958 were indeed Popes.

Your first point is correct. However, your follow on - that this equates to a positive doubt - is incorrect. The essential form is there - stripped of the many beautiful traditional prayers - but it is there. Moreover, the very fact that none of you can agree of why its invalid and where it's invalid, and that you home in on words that have been changed but maintain the same meaning, proves that you do not have a positive doubt. You are hazarding guesses and personal opinions that originate from a prejudice and preconceived standpoint: that the Catholic Church no longer exists; that all of it is fake.

My view of the Church - which is the view of the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre - correlates perfectly with scripture and the teachings of the Church. I do not believe the Church has failed because Christ said it would not. That IS the reality. Historically, the rites have been changed down through the ages. It is not a new thing. And what sounds foreign to our ear now has been used before. More importantly, the Church teaches that the words of the rite mean what the Church has always intended them to mean. So as long as the Holy Ghost is evoked, and the Sacrament being conferred is mentioned, it is valid. Yes, certainly, what happened to the Church is a test; a test of loyalty. She has been whipped and scoured and deserted by many - even St. Peter has denied her. She has lost much of her former glory. But as it was the same visible Christ, it is the same visible Church. There is no other. Judases and all.

1. The quotes you provided from Bp. Tissier prove that they acknowledged that they had "doubts" about the New Rites. The mistake those men made is that they were, apparently, unaware of the prior Church teaching that one must take the Tutiorist position when it comes to the ordinary reception of the Sacraments. They, like you, flip the script. You say that those who have objectively-based doubt (aka positive doubt) about the New Rites must PROVE invalidity. No, you are not following Church teaching. If I have to prove invalidity of the New Rite that would be a certainty. There would be no doubt in that case. You need to read more about the definitions of positive vs negative doubts, as Church theologians defined those terms. You can't just make up your own definitions, which is exactly what you are trying to do.

2. You say "so long as the Holy Ghost is evoked." No, absolutely wrong. Read Apostolicae Curae. Leo XIII says precisely that that exact phrase will not cut it. Here are his words from AC, 25:

25. But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly ordination namely, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Ordel of Priesthood (sacerdotium) or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power “of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord” (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Ord. , Canon 1) in that sacrifice which is no “bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the Cross” (Ibid, Sess XXII., de Sacrif. Missae, Canon 3).

3. The true Church is not the "whore of Babylon." The true Church is that is visible is defined by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, 69:

69. Now since its Founder willed this social body of Christ to be visible, the cooperation of all its members must also be externally manifest through their profession the same faith and their sharing the same sacred rites, through participation in the same Sacrifice, and the practical observance of the same laws. Above all, it is absolutely necessary that the Supreme Head, that is, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, be visible to the eyes of all, since it is He who gives effective direction to the work which all do in common in a mutually helpful way towards the attainment of the proposed end. As the Divine Redeemer sent the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth, who in His name should govern the Church in an invisible way, so, in the same manner, He commissioned Peter and his successors to be His personal representatives on earth and to assume the visible government of the Christian community.

Notice how the faithful members of the Church are made "externally manifest" (visible):

a. profession of the same faith
b. sharing of the same sacred rites
c. participation in the same Sacrifice
d. practical observance of the same laws

Then notice how in the next sentence he changes gears. He says that it is necessary that the Pope be "visible to the eyes of all." This part is directed to those who reject the doctrines of papal supremacy and infallibility. He is not saying there if there is no Pope (because of an interregnum) there is no Church. There have been many periods of Sede Vacante throughout history. The Church does not disappear when a Pope dies. So the discussion of the Papacy in this section is not absolutely necessary for "visibility."

Now, look again at Pius XII's requirements for visible membership (a through d above). Then ask yourself. Does the New Church and its members hold to substantially the same faith, sacred rites, same Sacrifice, same laws as the Saints like St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus, etc.? If you say yes, then you are very confused and unable to distinguish the key cleavages between the Faith and heresy.

The members of the New Church are happy to proclaim that the Church as "evolved" in its understanding in the areas of dogma. Death penalty is never okay. The divorced and remarried can receive the Sacraments. Active ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs need to be accepted and welcomed and BLESSED. Not only that, they changed the traditional Rites with no reason given. The never mention that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a renewal of Jesus's Sacrifice on Calvary every time it happens. They never tell those in the pews that they need to go to confession before receiving Communion.

If you say that is the Roman Catholic Faith, you are very confused woman. You have an upside down view of the final struggle we are going through. The visible Church that is being whipped is the tiny remnant who rejects the changes made in the 1960s because they are a rejection of the perennial Faith, Sacraments, and Disciplines of the True Church, which includes the Saints in heaven who died fighting against pagans and heretics.

1. The quotes you provided from Bp. Tissier prove that they acknowledged that they had "doubts" about the New Rites. The mistake those men made is that they were, apparently, unaware of the prior Church teaching that one must take the Tutiorist position when it comes to the ordinary reception of the Sacraments. They, like you, flip the script. You say that those who have objectively-based doubt (aka positive doubt) about the New Rites must PROVE invalidity. No, you are not following Church teaching. If I have to prove invalidity of the New Rite that would be a certainty. There would be no doubt in that case. You need to read more about the definitions of positive vs negative doubts, as Church theologians defined those terms. You can't just make up your own definitions, which is exactly what you are trying to do.

2. You say "so long as the Holy Ghost is evoked." No, absolutely wrong. Read Apostolicae Curae. Leo XIII says precisely that that exact phrase will not cut it. Here are his words from AC, 25:

3. The true Church is not the "whore of Babylon." The true Church is that is visible is defined by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, 69:

Notice how the faithful members of the Church are made "externally manifest" (visible):

a. profession of the same faith
b. sharing of the same sacred rites
c. participation in the same Sacrifice
d. practical observance of the same laws

Then notice how in the next sentence he changes gears. He says that it is necessary that the Pope be "visible to the eyes of all." This part is directed to those who reject the doctrines of papal supremacy and infallibility. He is not saying there if there is no Pope (because of an interregnum) there is no Church. There have been many periods of Sede Vacante throughout history. The Church does not disappear when a Pope dies. So the discussion of the Papacy in this section is not absolutely necessary for "visibility."

Now, look again at Pius XII's requirements for visible membership (a through d above). Then ask yourself. Does the New Church and its members hold to substantially the same faith, sacred rites, same Sacrifice, same laws as the Saints like St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus, etc.? If you say yes, then you are very confused and unable to distinguish the key cleavages between the Faith and heresy.

The members of the New Church are happy to proclaim that the Church as "evolved" in its understanding in the areas of dogma. Death penalty is never okay. The divorced and remarried can receive the Sacraments. Active ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs need to be accepted and welcomed and BLESSED. Not only that, they changed the traditional Rites with no reason given. The never mention that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a renewal of Jesus's Sacrifice on Calvary every time it happens. They never tell those in the pews that they need to go to confession before receiving Communion.

If you say that is the Roman Catholic Faith, you are very confused woman. You have an upside down view of the final struggle we are going through. The visible Church that is being whipped is the tiny remnant who rejects the changes made in the 1960s because they are a rejection of the perennial Faith, Sacraments, and Disciplines of the True Church, which includes the Saints in heaven who died fighting against pagans and heretics.

Bishop Tissier de Mallais seemed to indeed have doubts. However, as an educated man, I'm sure he understood the meaning of Positive Doubt which is why he skirted near the edge but never formerly crossed the line. Positive Doubt: there must be something specific that is missing from the essentials that could render it's validity doubtful. Without this type of doubt, the Church teaches we are to treat the Sacraments as valid.

It should be noted that His Lordship Tissier de Mallerais was influenced in his thinking by a man called Dr. Rama Coomarawamy. In a private letter His Lordship penned: "Thank you for sending me a copy of Dr. Rama Coomarawamy’s pamphlet “Le Drame Anglican" After reading it quickly, I concluded there was a doubt about the validity of episcopal consecration conferred according to the rite of Paul VI. The [phrase] “spiritum principalem” in the form introduced by Paul VI is not sufficiently clear in itself and the accessory rites do not specify its meaning in a Catholic sense."

This Dr. Coomarawamy has a checkered history and before his conversion to Catholicism when 22 years of age, derived from a family of Jєωιѕн hindu/occultists. This influence never left him and many of his works attempt to merge the two schools of thought together. Within the Traditionalist Catholic movement, Coomaraswamy initially grew close to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who appointed him Professor of Church History at the St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary of his organization, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), in Ridgefield, Connecticut, a position he held for about five years until 1983. While there, he began an ideological shift towards Sedevacantism. He successfully influenced a significant number of faculty and students to subscribe to Sedevacantism, resulting in the secession of a group of priests and seminarians from Lefebvre; initially nine, among them Clarence Kelly, Daniel Dolan, Donald Sanborn, William Jenkins, and Anthony Cekada. This group then formed the Society of St. Pius V (SSPV). When Dolan, Sanborn, Cekada and most of the other priests of the SSPV began to dissent from the rigorist leadership of Kelly, Coomaraswamy again joined them in departing from the SSPV. They then united in a loose manner as the "Instauratio Catholica". Over time, even this loose confederation frayed and ceased to exist.

Although a married man, he was ordained a priest by José Ramon Lopez-Gaston, a Sedevacantist bishop from the THUC lineage of the Vietnamese Archbishop Ngô Ðình Thuc Pierre Martin, in 1999 and began work as an exorcist without any mandate from the Church.

Relevance? In the early days Bishop Tissier de Malleriais may have been influenced by this man as many were, but I'm sure he distanced himself from him very quickly. I have a file on this Coomarawamy which I compiled years ago for an essay on the Occult within the Church. There is much more to his story, which I will submit once I remember where I put it.

2. Over and over again I have stated that the TWO elements must be present together.  Over and over again I have shown how both these elements are present in the form (the substance) of the New Clerical rites. Thus to bring in the "only one element" Anglican Rite as an argument is misleading; it is irrelevant.

3. I see. So you are calling the Roman Catholic Church, the Vatican and its hierarchy, "the whore of Babylon". These are the same words Luther used against the Church.

You wrote: "He is not saying if there is no Pope (because of an interregnum) there is no Church. There have been many periods of Sede Vacante throughout history. The Church does not disappear when a Pope dies."

No, the Church does not disappear when a Pope dies. What is your point?  Other than you are trying to play your position down and pretend that it has a historical basis. The definition of Sede-vacantism as a theory and all you believe it to be, is not a short interregnum between Popes. You know it is not. They are two totally different concepts. You believe that there is no Pope - because we have had 47 years of fake Popes - and that the Church is now- what? - a headless 'loose association' of revolutionaries answerable only to their own opinions?  Again like Luther.

Your biggest failing in all this is your misconception of the Church. You treat it as a human institution which can rebelled against if you don't like it. It is the Body of Christ. Visible and Eternal. Which means Pope Leo is Pope Peter; the unbroken chain of the Papacy. The rock upon which Christ built his Church. In other words, the two are inseparable. And have been inseparable since the beginning. As the Mystici Corporis teaches: "...our Savior Himself sustains in a divine manner the society which He founded." (52) and  "On the contrary, as Christ, Head and Exemplar of the Church “is not complete, if only His visible human nature is considered. . ., or if only His divine, invisible nature. . ., but He is one through the union of both and one in both . . . so is it with His Mystical Body” (121).

"Now since its Founder willed this social body of Christ to be visible, the cooperation of all its members must also be externally manifest through their profession the same faith and their sharing the same sacred rites, through participation in the same Sacrifice, and the practical observance of the same laws. Above all, it is absolutely necessary that the Supreme Head, that is, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, be visible to the eyes of all, since it is He who gives effective direction to the work which all do in common in a mutually helpful way towards the attainment of the proposed end. As the Divine Redeemer sent the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth, who in His name should govern the Church in an invisible way, so, in the same manner, He commissioned Peter and his successors to be His personal representatives on earth and to assume the visible government of the Christian community." (69)

Your concept of the Church no longer represents Christ. You have doubted His promise to protect His Church and substain it. And why? Because Christ has been scourged and stripped bare. And thus the mystical body is no longer to your liking. And instead of uniting yourself to Him and offering up this suffering with Him, you are deserting Him to go it alone and trying to convince others to desert Him also.

"And if at times there appears in the Church something that indicates the weakness of our human nature, it should not be attributed to her juridical constitution, but rather to that regrettable inclination to evil found in each individual, which its Divine Founder permits even at times in the most exalted members of His Mystical Body, for the purpose of testing the virtue of the shepherds no less than of the flocks, and that all may increase the merit of their Christian faith. For, as We said above, Christ did not wish to exclude sinners from His Church; hence if some of her members are suffering from spiritual maladies, that is no reason why we should lessen our love for the Church, but rather a reason why we should increase our devotion to her members." (66)

With regards to the following:
a. profession of the same faith
b. sharing of the same sacred rites
c. participation in the same Sacrifice
d. practical observance of the same laws

A. The teachings of the Catholic Church have not changed. It is the same profession of faith. Same dogmas and doctrines.
B. We share the same rites - albeit the new version of the rites have been scourged and stripped but still effects what Christ intended them to do. Moreover, in His mercy Christ raised up Archbishop Lefebrve to protect and maintain the original rite WITHIN His Church.
C. Same sacrifice.
D. Practical Observance of the same Laws. Canon Law has not changed in its substance. This is not to be confused with the hierarchy's bad example and personal interpretations. See (66).

Yes, the spirit that tampered with the Mass and the Sacraments is bad. The Judus who betrayed the Church is bad. But the Sacraments of the Church themselves are divine and despite all this tampering still effect what Christ intended them to effect because HE is the Church.