Novus Ordo Ordinations, the origin, history, and the intent of the Rite ... they're all identical to the factors that rendered Anglican Orders "absolutely null and utterly void" .. in addition to having changed the essential form.  Pope Leo XIII's teaching is crystal clear that the NO must be considered at least to labor under postiive doubt and quite possibly to be simply invalid.  There's no question, however that this causes positive doubt in an objective sense, which for all practical intents and purposes means that we are to treat them as invalid

You are mistaken. The Angelican Orders have no bearing on the Novus Ordo Ordinations. You are simply re-regurgitating Rama Coomaraswarmy's errors. 

I was blessed to pick up among our chapel's second-hand books that are for sale last Sunday, a 1956 book called 'Anglican Orders: Defect in Intention' by a Jesuit Father Francis Clark, who made a detailed study of the issue. He writes that while it was clear that the Form was lacking for validity, it is not so clear to the public what was meant by "defect of intention" which Leo XIII stipulated was a "separate root of invalidity". Now there is a helpful chapter entitled 'The Meaning of the Bull' (p.78) which establishes that 'the defect in intention' is referring to the personal defect in the intention of the ordaining minister; that is, the 'intention, to do as the Catholic Church does' was conclusively missing in the actual ministers using the rite. He further explains that while "The interior intention of the minister's mind is not per se open for inspection...(however) it is attainable per accidens, namely through its outward manifestation in his words or deeds, and it is under under that aspect that it can and must be judged." This outward manifestation of the Anglican rite, explains Pope Leo, was "substituting one rite for another" by purposely removing and obliterating 'all traces of sacrifice, of consecration of the priesthood, of the power to consecrate and offer sacrifice' in the Catholic sense. The Holy Father then goes on to stress that as this obliteration was done by "a party filled with known and proved animus against the Mass and the Catholic Church, it is clear that the truncated (suppressed/shortened) formula of ordination" - which was not admitted/formulated by the Church - was purposely formulated for ministers who did not intend to do as the Church does.

With regards to the new Catholic Ordination rite - admitted by the Church itself - the Form is not defective. The Holy Ghost is clearly evoked and the Sacrament being conferred is stated immediately after. Two essential elements present.

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."

This new rite was not formulated by "a party filled with KNOWN and PROVED animus against the Mass and the Catholic Church."

Pope Leo XIII was ruling against the creation of an outside party that had made it clear that they did not recognise the  authority of Rome; that they did not believe that all the sacraments could confer grace as the Catholics believe. None of the reasons for this Papal condemnation tally with the Catholic new Ordination rite. Furthermore, you sir, have absolutely no authority to declare on a rite of the Church as if you were Pope. You treat the Church as if Christ, having founded this same said Church, and invested over 2,000 years into her, has now suddenly given up on her, and transferred His authority to a fallible individual called 'Ladislaus' to personally mouth off against His Church with.

Agreed. I had things to tend to the last two days, but I'll try and come back to this this evening. I found an interesting article by a Father Juan Carlos Ceriani, written while he was still in the SSPX, which is worth commenting on and using as a template to keep my arguments in some sort of order. He, as you most likely know, was a Sedevacantist priest whose sede views came to fore even in the 1990's.

So, the following is in response to an article published by SSPX Asia in March/April 1999, based on a study of Father Juan Carlos Ceriani, a sede-vacantist priest who left the SSPX in 2006. It is entitled: New Sacrament of Extreme Unction (which is known today as 'Anointing of the Sick').

My objection to this article begins with point 2: 'The change of the doctrine and of the practice since  the Council of Vatican II.'

Immediate there is an error because Vatican II did not change any doctrines of the Catholic Church. There is no doubt that there was much ambiguity, and the emphasis on the spiritual side played down, however when read, as a whole, with surrounding material, it becomes clear that the sense of it is still very much Catholic. I will give you an example using the above mentioned article. The author writes: "The sacrament of Extreme Unction can only be administered to the faithful (...) who are in danger of death because of sickness or old age." (Traditional version, Canon 940). "The Sacrament of the anointing of the sick can be administered to the faithful (...) who begin to be in danger because of sickness or old age" (New Canon 1004). The word 'death' has been suppressed."

To make an argument out of this one word is absurd. We all know what it means. What else could it mean? Danger of losing one's job? Even the author himself concedes and follows with "However, it was mentioned in Vatican II's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, n.73:'...who begin to be in danger of death.'
Why even mention it then? This is picking at holes that don't exist.

Like the change of name. Are traditional Catholics aware that this sacrament was only formerly confirmed to be a sacrament at Trent, and that in previous ages it was known by a variety of names such as 'the office of the unction, 'the holy oil' and 'unction of the sick', to name a few. 

"For this reason it was also called by our predecessors in the faith, the Sacrament of the anointing of the sick" - ref. The Catechism of the council of Trent. Again, a non-existent hole.

I will give you a third: Writes the author "Elderly people may be anointed if they are weak, though not dangerously ill. 'Introduction to the rite of anointing of the sick and to the pastoral care of the sick', Dec. 7.1972. This is probably invalid." 
These are not even the correct words. The correct words are: 'Elderly people may be anointed if they become notably weakened even though no serious illness is present.' As this is for a priest to judge - because having nursed the elderly I can tell you that a notable decline can be fatal - this is no way meets the criteria for invalidity. It's just basic common sense.

Fourth point: The author writes, after quoting the Council of Florence about using olive oil for Holy oils, "The Holy Office declared September 14, 1842, that "it is rash and close to error to assert that this sacrament could be valid with another oil." I cannot find this reference other than a reference dated Jan. 13. 1611 which states that it is "rash and close to error" to assert that the sacrament could be valid with another oil other than oil consecrated by a bishop.

Fifth point: Writes the author: "The sick are to be anointed on the forehead and hands." (Paul VI. Apostolic constitution on the sacrament of the anointing of the sick). The author then claims that this is yet another proof of a change of "doctrine" as the traditional version has 5 unctions, and this new version has only 2. The author claims that this is proof that this constitutes as "an insistence on the cure of the body" rather than the spirit. 

I ask how so? The parts traditionally anointed are the eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and hands/feet. All are related to sins caused by these physical body parts - four of which take place in the head, and 1, which takes place in the body. All bases still covered. Meaning still the same. In fact, in Christian Initiation, General Introduction, 23, we read: "The head is the principal part where life integrally resides and thus stands for the whole person in a way no other body parts do." That is why, in an emergency, a priest can simply and validly anoint the head. So, yes, it is a shortened version, yes it doesn't share the same clarity, but no, it doesn't prove what this author claims it proves. That's the author's own private projection.

sixth point: The author then concludes with "the last important change concerns the form of this sacrament" only to then follow with "this change does not invalidate the sacrament because the essential meaning is still there." 
So, this last important change - which is merely a re-phrasement - has no baring on the validity of the sacrament. So why bring it up?

The only point that holds any relevance for further discussion is the point in reference to the blessing of the oils. The traditional formula ends with "...to restore the soul and body (...) in order that those who will receive this unction will have a help for the soul and body" while the new version ends with "...to restore this body (...) in order that those who will receive this unction will have a help for the body." I do not have the formulas in front of me - I am only relying on the versions provided in the article - so I will come back to this.

Meanwhile I will quote the Catholic encyclopedia: "the prayers for the blessing of the oils that have down to us differ very widely but all of them contain some reference to the purpose of anointing the sick...no special form would seem to be necessary for validity provided the purpose is expressed."

As we have already debated the exception to the rule - plant based oil - allowed by a Pope who has the authority to make such modifications, there is nothing here in this new rite that makes the sacrament invalid in itself especially as Pope Paul made it clear that Olive Oil was the traditional oil of the Church and was to be used if it could be acquired.

 Matter (oil) and Form both there. The intention to do as the Church does is there. Therefore, while it is a stripped down, simplified version, it contains the essentials and is therefore a valid rite.

As we have already debated the exception to the rule - plant based oil - allowed by a Pope who has the authority to make such modifications

  A pope. cannot. change. Scripture.

Please find 1 proof, from anytime in the last 1,960 years (pre-V2), where non-olive oil/plant oil was used by the Church.

The point is that PPVI changed the matter and form of the sacrament in order to change the sacrament: "We thought fit to modify the sacramental formula in such a way that, in view of the words of Saint James, the effects of the sacrament might be better expressed." 

In the new sacrament the priest asks no pardon of God for sins, you should ask: Why? It is because the focus is strictly on the body. 

You should note that this change does not at all take into account the words of St. James who says: "and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him." 

If it is true that he changed the established matter and form to better express the words of St. James, then you tell me - why did they purposely remove asking pardon from sins?

You may not know that even after a long life of sin, Catholics who receive the sacrament of Extreme Unction with the appropriate dispositions go straight to heaven when they die - they enter eternity without having to go to purgatory! This sacrament prepares man for glory immediately.

This cannot be said for those who receive the NO sacrament of Anointing of the sick, that is not even it's purpose. The NO sacrament does not do this because their foundation is in their preaching, that everyone already goes to heaven.....except of course those evil traditional Catholics. 

The Modernist mind-set was to stream-line and simplify everything for 'modern' man. The point is, despite these trimmings here, there and everywhere, the essentials for validity remained. The Holy Ghost only allowed them to go so far. I do not argue that there was a sinister agenda behind many of the post-Vatican II changes. I am only arguing that the indefectible Church of Christ is still the Church despite how hard its enemies tried to destroy it from within. I am also arguing that because of all these changes, we have become overly-sensitive to every change and are calling out 'errors' where there are none.

So then, according to you, Traditionalists are wrong.  +ABL was wrong.  He should've been excommunicated.

If V2 didn't change doctrine,
If the new rites are valid and licit,
If the pope has the power to change all of this,
If the V2 church is the church,
If the Holy Ghost is still protecting V2,

then the only logical conclusion is that Tradition is wrong.  It's schismatic.  There's no other conclusion.

So then, according to you, Traditionalists are wrong.  +ABL was wrong.  He should've been excommunicated.

If V2 didn't change doctrine,
If the new rites are valid and licit,
If the pope has the power to change all of this,
If the V2 church is the church,
If the Holy Ghost is still protecting V2,

then the only logical conclusion is that Tradition is wrong.  It's schismatic.  There's no other conclusion.

You are such a chessboard Pax. It's either this or it's that. No distinctions.

We know that the Church was infiltrated. The Church. The one Christ founded and has been in existence for over 2000 years. We know in Pope Leo's vision (1884) that satan asked Christ for 100 years to destroy His Church. Christ gave him permission to try - with more power than he had had before. We know that the Fabian Society (a branch of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ that specializes in infiltration) was founded in 1884. We know that Vatican II - legitimate in itself - was hijacked by these infiltrators who, unable to change the faith, planted ambiguous time-bombs for later use. There is a war going on WITHIN the Church; a battle between the traditionalists who clearly see the enemy at work, and the enemy who blindly thinks he can destroy what Christ divinely instituted. The Holy Ghost is keeping the Church intact despite these attacks, however all the propaganda and abuses generated by these enemies have lead the faithful astray. That is why, as that 100 years drew to a close, God in His mercy sent us Archbishop Lefebvre - to build back better :)

That is why that horrible novel 1984 is called 1984. It was written by a Fabian. The Fabians believed they would have things all wrapped up by 1984. How clueless satan is.

Christ is King!

Exactly, Pax.  If you're going to argue against doubtful Sacraments due to the disciplinary infallibility of the Church ... something that she agrees with the SVs on (whom she otherwise despises), that same disciplinary infallibility would also preclude a bad Mass, a harmful Mass, bad doctrine, and harmful doctrine ... at least to the degree that it harms souls to be subject to their teaching and to attend their Mass.  There's no definition of "disciplinary infallibility" that stops at the mere validity of the Sacraments that can be otherwise offensive to God and harmful to souls ... except an arbitrary one that she might make up to justify her position.

That's actually the strongest argument SSPX could make, but they can't go there ... since they've been arguing against that for years and years.  Or, when they wished to pay some homage to the idea, they pushed the "non-promulgation" theory, namely, that Paul VI never really promulgated the NOM the "right way", legally speaking.  Well, we could pull the same stunt on the NO Rites for Holy Orders, claim it wasn't promulgated the right way.

In fact, they COULD continue to save face by doing conditionals without having to question the validity of the Rites, by basing it on a pervasive loss of faith that would compromise intention, and the burden of having to undertake a difficult investigation which most of the time would yield no conclusive outcome anyway ... which is why +Lefebvre said he just did conditional confirmations without investigation.  +Lefebvre felt the Rite itself was valid (and I would agree on that one) ... BUT the Conciliar bishops could not be trusted to avoid messing with the form and the matter, and so he did it without investigation just because it was a burden that would result in nothing but a waste of time.

But the SSPX can't go around saying that Presbyter Bob and Overseer Bill may not be valid, since ... how can you have official talks with people you think may not even have any authority or rank in the Conciliar Church even?

If they had even a modicuм of intellectual honestly, they would just admit that this is their real motivaition.

Even where it comes to cigar-smoke-filled-backroom discussions with the Conciliars, they could just say, "Look, we consider the Rites valid, but we have to appease the laymen here, since they're making a big fuss.  If we want to bring them over using the frog-boiling method, we can't lose too many of them in the process too soon.  So, we'll do the conditionals, but wink-wink, it's just for internal consumption."

Political leaders do this junk all the time, where, say, Biden would call Netanyahu here and just say, "Look, I'll be issuing statements very critical of you just to appease my base, since they're getting worked up.  Pay no attention.  It's just for domestic consumption.  Meanwhile, the arms and money will continue to flow."