Bishop Tissier said: 

"...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.


Uhh....I think this is specific enough.


You're setting up a strawman, wherein because +Tissier didn't use the term 'positive doubt' then he didn't have it.    It just goes to show you don't know what you're talking about.  A doubt with is based on facts = positive doubt.

The fact that hundreds of clerics since 1970, and millions of Trads left the Church due to V2 and the doubts about the new church, are the strongest doubt that can exist.  Traditionalism wouldn't exist unless positive doubts existed about new-rome.

We all know the terms, and the terms are quite clear, and there's CLEARLY positive doubt.  This idiotic and wicked troll needs to be banned. She/he has some personal connection to or stake in the outcome, as only that could justify such copious amounts of obvious bullshit.

POSTIVE just means NOTHING MORE THAN THAT YOU CAN POINT TO SOMETHING SPECIFIC, and is easily defined by opposition with NEGATIVE DOUBT, which means that you have a doubt due to the mere absence of proof for validity.  Since I have no proof that it's valid, therefore I doubt whether the Sacrament took place.  I didn't HEAR Father say the words of consecration, therefore I doubt whether he actually did or not.

That's it, and doesn't require the beskirted troll-splaining from Borat here.

There are actual and real changes to the Rites, thereby there's something concrete involved, and that by definition constitutes positive doubt.

Of course, the positive doubt must be prudent, which simply means it's not nuts, and you're not crazy, and imagining things, or exaggerating matters.

Ordination ...
1) essential form changed, dropping the "ut", which explicitly makes the cause and effect relationship between the invocation of the Holy Ghost and the Sacramental effect, the two things Pius XII explicity stated were the core aspects of the essential form
2) they removed every single clear reference to the priest's power to offer sacrifice, which Pope Leo XIII taught vitiated the Catholic intention of the Rite when the Anglicans did it, rendering the Ordinal "absolutely null and utterly void", even IF the essential form happened to be correct

In fact, base done those two points, that nearly constitutes moral certainty that the Rite of Ordination is absolutely null and void.  Now, the difference is that we don't have the authority to impose this opinion on consciences, so instead of absolutely conferring ordination, as we would with the Anglican Ordinal, we would use the conditional formula until another ruling came from the legitimate and trustworthy Catholic authority.

Episcopal Consecration ...
1) essential form radically changed into something completely new and without precedent, bearing only some vague similarity to an Eastern Rite for installing a patriarch (which assumes that the man is already a bishop, as it would have been extraordinary for a priest to get installed as such)
2) extremely problematic, vague, and confusing essential form (and grammatically ambiguous), this "governing spirit".  With the gerund "governing", does that mean the Spirit IS the one governing, or is the Spirit conferring some gift of governing.  If the latter, then it's most certainly not the obvious sense of the grammar.  Secondly, governing refers to jurisdiction more than to the Order, a completion of the priesthood.  Auxiliary Bishops and Chor Bishops do not have jurisdiction when they're consecrated, so no "governing" is being communicated there.  Similar to the installation of a Patriach, this phrase also seems to confirm that someone is just being given jurisdiction rather than an elevation of Holy Orders, where a former Auxiliary Bishop is now being installed as the Bishop of a Diocese, i.e. put in charge and made a GOVERNING bishops vs. a NON-GOVERNING bishop.

I mean only a wicked lying troll like Borat would claim that this does not rise to the level of positive doubt.

Secondly, even if one claimed it did not, you don't have to definitivel prove positive doubt either to justify use of the conditional administration of the Sacrament.  That becomes sinful only if there's just no reason whatsoever, it's based on negative doubt, scruples, or some neurosis that does harm to the dignity of the Sacrament, where someone might baptize everyone with a pulse "just in case [Father got it wrong]".  But to use it for these types of situations, there's clearly no sin at all, AND when you add to it the requirement of charity to quiet the consciences of the faithful, those requirements of charity resolved the doubt immediately in favor of conditional ordination being necessary.

AND, on top of it, the mere unreasonable burden of requiring an investigation of every case, where Traditional Catholics bishops and priests have neither the time nor the resources, and even if they did, would often find themselves unable to draw a conclusion, since the minister had already passed away or his dispositoins at the time could not be ascertained, and his internal inforum intentions not discovered.  +Lefebvre said exactly that about confirmation where, since the Concilars were so loose with matter and form, that alone sufficed his conditional Confirmations, since nobody had time to investigate every one of them and even if they did could not likely arrive at a solid conclusion one way or the other.

Finally, when you take the worst case scenario of being wrong on either side of the debate, the consequences of being wrong about the validity of the NO Sacrament absolutely eclipse the consequences of being wrong about there being positive doubt.

This is SUCH a no brainer that only wicked malice can explain the promotion of this terrible and damnable error.

...

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.

Your "conception" of the Church is bizarre. You believe that the institutional hierarchy can do and say anything they please, and, as long as they claim to be "Roman Catholic," they are Roman Catholic in your eyes.

No! Those people who claim to be a members of the Body of Christ and teach doctrines contrary to Christ's are NOT members of His Mystical Body. They are hypocritical heretics. They cut themselves off from His Mystical Body. But they hide their heresies with convoluted reasonings and false charity, all the while claiming to be Catholic as they dismantle "the Church." And you, deceived as you are, call them your leaders and bishops and priests and Popes.

You think because those people wear miters and control buildings and bank accounts that they represent "the Church." This is silly and superficial. Those hypocrites are infiltrators of the true Church. They are what St. Augustine calls "the false brethren."

The true Church is made up of the faithful Remnant holding to the four pillars spoken of by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. This Remnant Church consists of both clergy and laity. It is small, very small in number, and weak in the eyes of worldlings. It is this weakness of the Remnant that is most like Christ.

I have not "doubted His promise to protect His Church and sustain it." He will save us because He is our Savior. But this happens only after all will appear to be lost from an "institutional Church" perspective.

And yes the Mystical Body of Christ "has been scourged and stripped bare." This is happening right now to his true Mystical Body as it happened to Him 2000 years ago. This is being done by the "false brethren" who do not keep his Commandments but, instead, introduce novel practices and doctrines such as blessing ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ couples, turning a blind eye to divorce and remarriage, and making a general mockery of His Sacrifice for our sins. And you talk as if you are on the side of those doing the scourging.

But in your bizzaro "conception," you believe that the traditional Catholics, those who keep His Commandments and live the Sacramental life identical to the Saints for millennia, are the ones "scourging" Christ. No, the traditionalists are not scourging Christ. We are standing up for Christ, whose teachings are the eternal Truth. And the primary enemies are wolves and sheep's clothing who have infiltrated the mystical body and have deceived weak-minded people like you.

We all know the terms, and the terms are quite clear, and there's CLEARLY positive doubt.  This idiotic and wicked troll needs to be banned. She/he has some personal connection to or stake in the outcome, as only that could justify such copious amounts of obvious bullshit.

POSTIVE just means NOTHING MORE THAN THAT YOU CAN POINT TO SOMETHING SPECIFIC, and is easily defined by opposition with NEGATIVE DOUBT, which means that you have a doubt due to the mere absence of proof for validity.  Since I have no proof that it's valid, therefore I doubt whether the Sacrament took place.  I didn't HEAR Father say the words of consecration, therefore I doubt whether he actually did or not.

That's it, and doesn't require the beskirted troll-splaining from Borat here.

There are actual and real changes to the Rites, thereby there's something concrete involved, and that by definition constitutes positive doubt.

Of course, the positive doubt must be prudent, which simply means it's not nuts, and you're not crazy, and imagining things, or exaggerating matters.

Ordination ...
1) essential form changed, dropping the "ut", which explicitly makes the cause and effect relationship between the invocation of the Holy Ghost and the Sacramental effect, the two things Pius XII explicity stated were the core aspects of the essential form
2) they removed every single clear reference to the priest's power to offer sacrifice, which Pope Leo XIII taught vitiated the Catholic intention of the Rite when the Anglicans did it, rendering the Ordinal "absolutely null and utterly void", even IF the essential form happened to be correct

In fact, base done those two points, that nearly constitutes moral certainty that the Rite of Ordination is absolutely null and void.  Now, the difference is that we don't have the authority to impose this opinion on consciences, so instead of absolutely conferring ordination, as we would with the Anglican Ordinal, we would use the conditional formula until another ruling came from the legitimate and trustworthy Catholic authority.

Episcopal Consecration ...
1) essential form radically changed into something completely new and without precedent, bearing only some vague similarity to an Eastern Rite for installing a patriarch (which assumes that the man is already a bishop, as it would have been extraordinary for a priest to get installed as such)
2) extremely problematic, vague, and confusing essential form (and grammatically ambiguous), this "governing spirit".  With the gerund "governing", does that mean the Spirit IS the one governing, or is the Spirit conferring some gift of governing.  If the latter, then it's most certainly not the obvious sense of the grammar.  Secondly, governing refers to jurisdiction more than to the Order, a completion of the priesthood.  Auxiliary Bishops and Chor Bishops do not have jurisdiction when they're consecrated, so no "governing" is being communicated there.  Similar to the installation of a Patriach, this phrase also seems to confirm that someone is just being given jurisdiction rather than an elevation of Holy Orders, where a former Auxiliary Bishop is now being installed as the Bishop of a Diocese, i.e. put in charge and made a GOVERNING bishops vs. a NON-GOVERNING bishop.

I mean only a wicked lying troll like Borat would claim that this does not rise to the level of positive doubt.

Secondly, even if one claimed it did not, you don't have to definitivel prove positive doubt either to justify use of the conditional administration of the Sacrament.  That becomes sinful only if there's just no reason whatsoever, it's based on negative doubt, scruples, or some neurosis that does harm to the dignity of the Sacrament, where someone might baptize everyone with a pulse "just in case [Father got it wrong]".  But to use it for these types of situations, there's clearly no sin at all, AND when you add to it the requirement of charity to quiet the consciences of the faithful, those requirements of charity resolved the doubt immediately in favor of conditional ordination being necessary.

AND, on top of it, the mere unreasonable burden of requiring an investigation of every case, where Traditional Catholics bishops and priests have neither the time nor the resources, and even if they did, would often find themselves unable to draw a conclusion, since the minister had already passed away or his dispositoins at the time could not be ascertained, and his internal inforum intentions not discovered.  +Lefebvre said exactly that about confirmation where, since the Concilars were so loose with matter and form, that alone sufficed his conditional Confirmations, since nobody had time to investigate every one of them and even if they did could not likely arrive at a solid conclusion one way or the other.

Finally, when you take the worst case scenario of being wrong on either side of the debate, the consequences of being wrong about the validity of the NO Sacrament absolutely eclipse the consequences of being wrong about there being positive doubt.

This is SUCH a no brainer that only wicked malice can explain the promotion of this terrible and damnable error.

Firstly, none of what I say is in malice. I'm simply a Catholic who loves the Church and who has a lot of gratitude to the SSPX who lead me to the traditional understanding of the Church. You do not seem to have such gratitude but I guess, that's your affair.

Right, down to business: When we speak of Positive Doubt in relation to the Sacraments, we are speaking about whether the essential form (the essential words in the form that effect the Sacrament) are present or not; whether there is an absence of proof of validity within THE FORM. That is the 'Specific'. You have had some Seminarian training, would you not agree to that? Therefore when His Lordship Bishop Tissier de Mallarais says "...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..." we can all agree - make the distinction - that he was not speaking about the Essential Form but rather the three sub-rites that take place after the priest-elect is already ordained a priest.

Ok. Back to the Form: Pius XII said there must be two essential elements to make it valid: evoking the Holy Ghost and naming the Sacrament you are conferring. Like Baptism whose basic form (template if you will) was given to us by Christ: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." Those words are contained within a long ceremony but it is those words, and those words alone, that effect the validity of the Sacrament. Now you agree that the Holy Ghost is evoked, and you agree that the Sacrament being conferred is mentioned. What you are hung up on is that they have slightly re-arranged the words so that the Latin word 'ut' meaning 'so that' is no longer used. You claim this changes the intention. Yet when you read the words in the new Rite - which are almost identical to the traditional rite - the sense and meaning is exactly the same. Both the SSPX and Bishop Williamson have publicly stated this to be so. The promise of the Eternal Church states this to be so.

Regarding your point 2: Pope Leo XIII"s ruling on the Anglican Ordination rite has NO relevance to the new Catholic Rite and is continually being taken out of context. Yet you continually hold on to it like a lifebelt. Well, let us take a more in depth look at it: Your argument is that, what was lacking in the Anglican rite is also lacking in the new Catholic rite. It therefore follows, so you claim, that if the Anglican rite is invalid, so too must be the new Catholic rite. Apart from the glaring fact that you have NO authority to make such an assumption, what was lacking in the Anglican rite?

Pope Leo XIII outlined three reasons: (1) The primary reason was the Form which he declared defective due to a clear defect in the words, which was supported by (2) the absence of certain surrounding language (the significatio ex adjunctis), and (3) that the Anglicans introduced a new rite without the mandate of the Church who alone has the authority to declare what is valid or invalid. This made it clear, beyond doubt, that the Anglicans did not intend to do what the Church does. Writes Pope Leo: " ...if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament." - Apostolicae Curae, No. 33.

As Pope Leo makes clear: "With this inherent defect of Form is joined the defect of 'intention' which is equally essential to the Sacrament."

Ok. So let us look at why the essential words for validly were defective: In the original Anglican rite the words "Receive the Holy Ghost" were used, but the Sacramental reason why they were receiving the Holy Ghost is missing. There was no mention of conferring a Priestly order like the apostles. None. In other words of the two essential elements of the Form, only one was present. Clear defect. Clear positive doubt. In later versions of the Anglican rite the words 'for the work and office of priest/bishop' were injected however again, the Sacramental reason why - the conferring of a Sacrament - is still missing. Moreover, it was clear by their intent and teachings and refusal to follow the authority of Rome, that they did not mean to do as the Church does.

So in the Anglican rite: the Form is defective/missing an essential element, the surrounding prayers supporting the understanding of a sacrificing priesthood is completely missing and the Intention to do what the Church does is missing.

Let us compare this to the New Ordination Rite of the Catholic Church:

1. The Form is not defective. The Holy Ghost is evoked and the Sacrament being conferred is stated. Two essential elements present.

2. The surrounding prayers, while stripped down in comparison to the traditional rite, do still clearly define the sacrificial and sacramental nature of the priesthood: eg: : "(This new priest-elect) is called to share in the priesthood of the bishops and to be molded into the likeness of Christ, the supreme and eternal Priest. By consecration he will made a true priest of the New Testament, to preach the gospel, sustain God's people, and celebrate the liturgy, above all, the Lord's sacrifice." Also " Your ministry will perfect the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful, the sacrifice which is offered sacramentally through your hands....(also) when you baptize, you will bring men and women into the people of God. In the sacrament of penance, you will forgive sins in the name of Christ and the Church. With holy oil you will relieve and console the sick." And in the words of the bishop "Are you resolved to celebrate the mysteries of Christ faithfully and religiously as the Church has handed down to us for the Glory of God and the sanctification of Christ's people."

3. The Form, Matter, Surrounding Prayers, and the Intention to do what the Church intends, is all there. 

I repeat: 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. Because the Holy Roman Catholic Church is eternal and its teachings cannot change.

Boru has responded to ZERO of my rebuttals.  She is just an autistic, copy-paste, spam machine. 

Christ founded His VISIBLE Church in Rome (Vatican), upon the Papacy, beginning with St. Peter. He promised the gates of hell would never prevail against it and that He would sustain it always. This same said Church, has remained steadfast throughout the ages, despite many attacks from its enemies. Both scripture and the teachings of Popes all state that the Church is an inseparable union of both the invisible (divine) and visible (human) like the earthy body of Christ Himself. Then you and your ilk come along and say 'No, Christ is wrong. The scriptures are wrong. The Holy Popes are wrong. That that institution in Rome is no longer the Church. It has ceased. Or at best, separated into a human 'Conciliar' Church and a 'divine' 'loose association'. That is your novel premise. That is why you will not have it that the Sacraments are valid. You have to justify your decision for stepping outside of the Church like a Protestant. My traditional premise, on the other hand, is what the Church has always taught. That the Body of Christ is an eternal union of both God and man that cannot be separated: The Hypostatic union. That is why I hold that the Sacraments are valid - despite the human enemy within attacking it - because the Church cannot change. It is eternal. It is divine. And thus, yes, it is impossible for the Church to give us defective sacraments. And there is no twisting of words either. The Rites clearly contain the essential elements as stipulated by the Popes.

But Jesus did not say how the Church would be sustained.  Some people suspect that the Church will mimic Christ's life and death.  This time period is reflection of the body in the tomb before the resurrection.  We can assume that on "Good Friday"  Jesus's soul was separated from his body.  That is what appears right now.  Jesus's body what is visible in Rome is separated from his soul what is essentially invisible.  That is the simplistic way that I understand it.  Someone better at this scholarly stuff can probably explain it a lot better.

Christ founded His VISIBLE Church in Rome (Vatican), upon the Papacy, beginning with St. Peter. He promised the gates of hell would never prevail against it and that He would sustain it always. This same said Church, has remained steadfast throughout the ages, despite many attacks from its enemies. Both scripture and the teachings of Popes all state that the Church is an inseparable union of both the invisible (divine) and visible (human) like the earthy body of Christ Himself. Then you and your ilk come along and say 'No, Christ is wrong. The scriptures are wrong. The Holy Popes are wrong. That that institution in Rome is no longer the Church. It has ceased. Or at best, separated into a human 'Conciliar' Church and a 'divine' 'loose association'. That is your novel premise. That is why you will not have it that the Sacraments are valid. You have to justify your decision for stepping outside of the Church like a Protestant. My traditional premise, on the other hand, is what the Church has always taught. That the Body of Christ is an eternal union of both God and man that cannot be separated: The Hypostatic union. That is why I hold that the Sacraments are valid - despite the human enemy within attacking it - because the Church cannot change. It is eternal. It is divine. And thus, yes, it is impossible for the Church to give us defective sacraments. And there is no twisting of words either. The Rites clearly contain the essential elements as stipulated by the Popes.

So ... now, finally, you actually make a valid point, that the Catholic Church, i.e. a legitimate Pope, cannot promulgate invalid or even doubtful Sacraments.  That is in fact the Sedevacantist position.  Hopefully we can put aside the crap you spun form the Rites themselves about how there can't be positive doubt by intrinsic consideration of the Rites themselves.  You are in fact imposing an extrinsic criterion, the disciplinary infallibily of the Church.  Very strange, since you've made no secret about your hatred for sedevacantists.  This here explains your twisted tortured logic where you applied an "eisegetic" or "hermeneutic" to your analysis of the Rites, begging the question and assuming their validity a priori, due to this particular premise, rather than considering the content of the Rites objectively ... and this is a premise that you share with the SVs, and some conservative Conciliars, but NOT with the SSPX.

Only two problems.

1) SVs deny your premise that these men are CERTAINLY popes, but hold that there's at least positive doubt for their legitimacy, and that in turn propagates downward into the Sacrament question, since the positive doubt regarding their legitimacy then does not preclude positive doubt about the Sacraments.  In fact, many R&R Catholics deny your premise that these are CERTAINLY popes.  Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Tissier, Bishop Williamson, and many other R&R also deny your premise that these are CERTAINLY Popes, as they have all stated that sedevacante is POSSIBLE, and possibility (aka positive doubt in that context) precludes certainty of the contrary proposition.  In fact, most theologians hold that the legitimacy of a pope must be held as certain with the certainty of faith.  But the second you say it's POSSIBLE that they are not legitimate, you no longer believe they're popes with that requisite certainty of faith.  This means that by applying arugment modo tollentis, +Lefebvre and those others reject your premise, since if there's positive doubt about the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants, that does not rule out positive doubt about the Sacraments.  capisce?  You must then reject their position and consider yourself a dogmatic sedeplenist.  Except that historically the SSPX have NOT been dogmatic sedeplenist, so this argument does not apply to them.  Of course, non-certain papa, or papa dubious = nullus papa.  You can no more doubt the legitimacy of a certainly valid pope than you can doubt that God is Three Divine Persons.  So if you doubt it, then your major premise goes down the proverbial crapper.  So even if YOU YOURSELF hold dogmatic sedeplenist, historically the SSPX have NOT, so you're imposing your personal view on a position they do not hold.

2) SSPX have denied the disciplinary infallibility of the Church for DECADES now, either directly or indirectly, in principle, by holding it doesn't exist or else by saying that, well, the NOM wasn't REALLY promulgated "legally" by Montini.  So then one can make the claim right back in their faces and claim that the New Rites of Holy Orders were not REALLY promulgated "legally" by Montini, using the same twisted logic.  They also twist and weasel their way out of admitting the infallibility of canonizations.  So if there's a possibility that the New Rites were not properly or legally promulgated, then the doubt remains, since the promulgation of an invalid Rite would not contradict disciplinary infallibility any more than the promulgation of a bad Rite that harms souls.  Basically, the same stuff you wax poetic about here also precludes that the Church would promulgate a BAD Mass that's harmful to sousl, and a BAD Ecuмenical Council and BAD Magisterium for 60 years ... all these too wouuld be precluded by Christ's prmise that the gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church.

So, then, here's the question -- do you hold that there's nothing really wrong with the New Mass?  If you do, then you're making your own personal position statement and it has nothing to do with whether the SSPX are in internal contradiction with their own or not, i.e. your arguments are irrelevant to our case against the SSPX.  If you hold that there IS something wrong with the New Mass, that it's bad, harmful to souls, and we cannot assist at it in good consciences ... then in that case you're again in total self-contradiction, since that too would mean that the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Church.  In fact, +Lefebvre, whom you falsely pretend to speak for, actually affirmed that the protection of the Holy Ghost over the papacy, and the promises of Christ, including "the gates of helll ...", they SHOULD in fact preclude all the destruction taking place now, and not merely the invalidity of Sacraments.

So basically you can't at the same time hold that due to "gates of hell ..." and some nonsense about the "They Hypostatic Union", which makes no sense (just because you put it in bold doesn't make it any more relevant), because the question is whether the the Conciliar Church is that Church, or that Body, to which God is united, you cannot hold that this gates of hell promise precludes invalid Rites but not bad Rites that lead souls to Helll, because you draw some arbitrary (have your cake and eat it too) boundary line to where the gates of hell should be drawn.

But Jesus did not say how the Church would be sustained.  Some people suspect that the Church will mimic Christ's life and death.  This time period is reflection of the body in the tomb before the resurrection.  We can assume that on "Good Friday"  Jesus's soul was separated from his body.  That is what appears right now.  Jesus's body what is visible in Rome is separated from his soul what is essentially invisible.  That is the simplistic way that I understand it.  Someone better at this scholarly stuff can probably explain it a lot better.

Yes, I agree, as the Church IS the Body of Christ (the Hypostatic Union) it certainly will be - or is being - scourged and stripped, and there will come a time when this Body is crucified by Her enemies and hidden from sight for three and a half days. Scripture tells us this in Revelation:

"And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and it was said to me: Arise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar and them that adore therein.
² But the court, which is without the temple, cast out, and measure it not: because it is given unto the Gentiles, and the holy city they shall tread under foot two and forty months (three and half years):
³ And I will give unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred sixty days (roughly three and half years), clothed in sackcloth.
⁴ These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks, that stand before the Lord of the earth....

And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast, that ascendeth out of the abyss, shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
⁸ And their bodies shall lie in the streets of the great city, which is called spiritually, Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord also was crucified (Jerusalem).
⁹ And they of the tribes, and peoples, and tongues, and nations, shall see their bodies for three days and a half: and they shall not suffer their bodies to be laid in sepulchres.
¹⁰ And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry: and shall send gifts one to another, because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt upon the earth.
¹¹ And after three days and a half, the spirit of life from God entered into them. And they stood upon their feet, and great fear fell upon them that saw them." - Rev. 1:11.

The Olive trees mean 'Anointed Ones' and traditionally believed to be the Holy Father and an Earthly Catholic king.
This means the visibly Body that has always been there, will be hidden from sight for three and half days for there is no Church, no Body of Christ without the Papacy, its head, as Pope Leo XIII teaches.

Keep in mind, Jesus was both God and man. So while he died as a man and 'gave up his human spirit', He never died as God. The divine nature - His divine soul - remained with the Body.