Here is Pius XII's exact quote, again, which other readers can use to draw their own conclusions about the Pope's intentions:

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12sacrao.htm

"Finally, what We have above declared and provided is by no means to be understood in the sense that it be permitted even in the slightest detail to neglect or omit the other rites which are prescribed in the Roman Pontifical; on the contrary We order that all the prescriptions laid down in the said Roman Pontifical be religiously observed and performed.

The provisions of this Our Constitution have not retroactive force; in case any doubt arises, it is be submitted to this Apostolic See.
These things We proclaim, declare, and decree, all things to the contrary notwithstanding, even those worthy of special mention, and accordingly We will and order that in the Roman Pontifical they be clearly indicated. Let no man therefore infringe this Constitution which We have enacted, nor dare to contravene the same."

Again, you misrepresent what I have said. I will say it again. There are multiple things happening in a traditional Priestly Ordination as described by Aquinas (not by me):

1. A blessing is given to prepare the recipient for the graces of the Sacrament.

2. The grace of the Order is conveyed by imposition of hands (matter) and the Preface prayer (form). The indelible character is imprinted here, says Pius XII.

3. The priest's hands and instruments must be consecrated because unconsecrated things cannot touch Our Lord. Aquinas said that the indelible character was imprinted on this step, but he has now been overruled by Pius XII.

Assigning the precise point where the indelible character of Order was imprinted was the subject matter of Sacramentum Ordinis. It has been settled. I agree with you that this precise issue has been settled.

The consecration by anointing with oils was not discussed in Sacramentum Ordinis. Pius XII did not have a reason to discuss that subject there. Yes, SO said that "handing over of the instruments" was not the matter of the imprinting of the indelible character. But one should not take that to mean that a priest can now handle Our Lord with unconsecrated hands and instruments. The consecration with oils must still be done as it had always been done to perfect the power Sacrament. Otherwise, the priest is committing a sacrilege by touching Our Lord with unconsecrated hands. It is not just ecclesiastically illicit. It is immoral for theological reasons.

It is similar to a lay person handing out Holy Communion. The reason a lay person should not do this is not because he's a lay person, but, rather, because his hands have not been consecrated.

It is similar to a lay person handing out Holy Communion. The reason a lay person should not do this is not because he's a lay person, but, rather, because his hands have not been consecrated.

That is just a dumb statement.

A deacon is an ordinary minister of communion. His hands are not consecrated with Chrism. Further, an acolyte is an extraordinary minister of communion and his hands too are not consecrated with Chrism.

Put down Aquinas' Summa for a while and read the Church Fathers and, equally important, read the decrees of the ecuмenical councils and local councils of the early Church.

Maybe you should brush up on Canon Law, Elwin. In the traditional Catholic Church, the deacon is not "an ordinary minister of communion." And only for a "grave cause" and "legitimate necessity" can a deacon hand out Holy Communion.

Canon 845 (1917):

§ 1. The ordinary minister of holy communion is only a priest.
§ 2. A deacon is an extraordinary [minister], authorized by the local Ordinary or a pastor, granted for grave cause, which in case of legitimate necessity is presumed.

Sacred Chrism is necessary matter for Confirmation.

https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.III.Q72.A3