Sedevacantists and Akita

[awkward customer]

It's worth emphasising that Terry Schiavo could not take food or liquid by mouth.  That's why she needed a feeding tube inserted into her stomach.

The issue surely hinges on whether feeding tubes inserted into the stomach constitute 'Ordinary' or 'Extraordinary' treatment especially when there is no hope of recovery and being fed like this will be the permanent, long term state of the patient.  John Paul II said they do.  But what did the pre-Conciliar Popes say?

Interestingly, when the Catholic Princess Grace of Monaco suffered a haemorrhagic stroke while driving in 1981, then lost control of her car, went over the edge of a cliff and suffered another stroke, the Catholic doctors at the Catholic hospital advised her Catholic husband Prince Ranier that she would never recover.  And so Prince Ranier made the decision to switch off her life support machine.

Was he wrong?

[Bataar]

(1) Lay people have zero responsibility to solve the crisis in Rome even intellectually.
(2) Lay people have no responsibility to resolve the crisis on a personal level, either.  If it is God's judgment, at my death, that I should have "made a decision" about PF or whoever, He will surprise me with that news at that time, and until then, no one is authorized to tell any other Catholic about a manufactured moral responsibility to "figure it all out."

We are responsible to comply with divine positive law and the precepts of the Church whether or not PF is doing so and whether or not he imagines (wrongly) that he is at liberty to change divine law, such as the Sixth Commandment -- and whether or not we make a public statement about what he is doing and the state of his office and his soul.

The people who may very well be held responsible are the clerical personnel involved in a refusal to lead and a refusal to clarify -- a refusal to complete the duties of their own ecclesiastical state in life, which are not a lay person's state in life. We don't have to internalize other people's responsibilities to act on heresy, let alone take the blame for the sins of confused hierarchy or outright heretics. We have plenty of our own sins, and we will be responsible only for those.

Completely agree with Bonaventure that only God can solve this, and even most N.O. priests at this time, not to mention all trad priests I'm acquainted with, are convinced that both the Church and the world are too far gone at this point for either to repair itself without divine intervention.

Lay people do have an obligation to know the truth so they can act on it accordingly.

Let's say that sedevacantists are right for this argument.
Bishops consecrated in the rite of Paul VI are not valid and therefore, none of the priests they've ordained are valid.

Therefore, none of the priests in question are actual priests and none of their sacraments are valid. Lay people have an obligation to receive valid sacraments. If they are going to these lay priests, they are not receiving valid sacraments and are therefore, in unknowing disobedience to God. If the above scenario is true, would you agree that lay people do have an obligation to make a change to ensure they receive valid sacraments?

(I separated out the non sequiturs for emphasis.)  There would be no situation that the pre-V2 Church has ever proposed to the faithful that would entail lay people making a judgment about the validity of a sacramental rite -- for any of the 7 sacraments. And this is one of the root problems with SV'ism in principle. Again, lay people have zip authority to make dogmatic pronouncements outside of the deposit of faith and outside of confirming what the pre-V2 Church has pronounced. 

A rite is a change in certain externals of form; it is not a change in doctrine.  What priests are allowed to say -- and have said -- are observations or perceptions of the efficacy of certain rites.  Thus, Fr. Ripperger has weighed in on the superior form of the traditional rite of baptism, largely because of the extensive exorcisms and the general thoroughness of it.  Ditto for him and other priests when it comes to Extreme Unction vs. the (new) Anointing of the Sick.

Superiority of form is a separate matter than validity.  Validity for a sacrament consists of essential form and essential matter.  Thus, we must hear, "I absolve you..in the name of...[etc.]" at the end of our Confession, and we have a right to insist on having our real sins heard and not hear an abusive priest dismiss our recital "because one sin is enough." Maybe the second sin is a mortal one; how would he know that?  I mean technically, the matter is our sorrow/contrition, but he needs to know: contrition for what?  Or he will not be able to act as the judge in persona Christi.

Many modern priests use a variety of "rites" for Confession, and we've all been there:  more often than not, such confessions are highly disappointing, to say the least. But if they meet the bare minimum requirements for matter and form (including our part), then the sacrament has been administered and received, albeit not ideally or as profoundly as possible.

But because the Sacrament of Penance seems to be subject to the most regular abuse by diocesan priests, I do avoid their confessionals if possible.  That said, the most powerful confessional experience I ever had was to a very holy diocesan-ordained priest whose adult Masses and children's Masses I attended regularly when my children were little.  I also studied with him in theology school, which was how I got to know him. In confession, he read my soul.  He was the only priest to have done that, and I have never had that experience before or after that.  When a priest reads your soul, you know without question that Jesus Christ is present in that moment...unless you're like the ancient Romans and believe superstitiously in divination. Or -- and I know this is a sensitive word but it applies in this case -- if one believes that one has Gnostic knowledge about the efficacy of newer sacramental rites that the rest of us lack.

There have been a few occasions in which I have received more sacramental graces at a very reverent N.O.M. Holy Communion (in the past) than at a TLM.  The only difference in those particular cases?  My disposition.

These differences and exceptions are not meant to blur the clear differences between old and new rites.  I offer them in sincere disclosure but also to illustrate how important it is not to arrogate to ourselves judgments that only the Church can make about validity of sacraments.  We should always seek the highest rite we can for the fullness of graces available -- contingent upon our disposition - but validity itself is an absolute quality, not a matter of degree. A rite is valid or invalid, not valid or "questionable."  Form and matter.

Fr. Ripperger, who quite prefers the TLM and I believe says it exclusively -- has no patience with assertions that hosts consecrated by diocesan priests are "not really consecrated."  He says that the proof that these hosts bear the divinity of Christ is that the demons respond exactly the same to hosts consecrated by any Catholic priest.  He has seen the syndrome many times and has watched the demons respond no differently to either.

Pope Pius XII infallibly declared what is required in the sacramental form for the consecration of a bishop. Paul VI changed the form. His new form does not match what Pius XII declared is required for validity. It matches the Anglican form which Pope Leo XIII declared to be utterly null and void. Therefore it's reasonable to assert that bishops consecrated in the new form are not valid the same as a baptism is not valid if the priest says, "We baptize" instead of "I baptize".

Laity or vagi clergy can assert whatever they like, but until and unless the Church definitively settles the matter, any such assertion will remain simply a private opinion.

I like to remind myself that, the same clergy that are the biggest asserters that the 1968 NREC is "invalid" and the 1968 NRPO is "doubtful" also promulgated the idea that Michael Schiavo had a "God given right" to murder Terri Schiavo (Cekada), and the Prefect of Sanborn's seminary (Despósito), has stated that one "una cum Mass" is more offensive to Almighty God than every single abortion in the history of mankind. (Source: https://x.com/frdesposito/status/434837570053087232?s=46)

Funnily enough, that would mean that the una cum ordination rite and subsequent Mass of his superior and the man who ordained him (Sanborn) was also more offensive to Almighty God, than aforementioned abortions.

Novus Ordo sacraments either are valid or they aren't. It doesn't matter if the hierarchy declares anything or not. If the solemn, holy and orthodox priest offers the sacrifice of the Mass, if he wasn't ordained by a valid bishop, then what he's distributing to his congregation is just bread.  Therefore, the laity should try to be informed so they can know if they're receiving the body and blood of Jesus or just bread.

[queen.saints]

It's worth emphasising that Terry Schiavo could not take food or liquid by mouth.  That's why she needed a feeding tube inserted into her stomach.

One of the very first things the doctor points out is that it is not true that she could not swallow.


"4) The parts of Terri Schiavo's brain which would allow her to swallow on her own were intact and, in fact, she did not suffer from medically significant dysphagia (swallowing difficulty). If she had, she would have been dead long ago from a condition known as aspiration pneumonia, an infection in the lungs which is the result of inhaling one's own saliva."

https://www.wcbohio.com/articles/the-execution-of-terri-schiavo-1




I only really noticed this point for the first time rereading it now, because the family that makes these calendars
https://www.liturgyofthehome.com/

have a little boy
(please pray for him!!)
in the hospital since the last few months because he had a tumor removed that was affecting the left side of his brain which you need to swallow. Unfortunately even after having the tumor removed he can't swallow and it is really a big deal like the doctor's response says and a completely separate, obvious, immediate life and death situation that requires lots of intervention.

[queen.saints]

I like to remind myself that, the same clergy that are the biggest asserters that the 1968 NREC is "invalid" and the 1968 NRPO is "doubtful" also promulgated the idea that Michael Schiavo had a "God given right" to murder Terri Schiavo (Cekada) ....

What?

Forcing a feeding tube into the stomach of someone with lifelong Bulimia whose body has been destroyed by the ravages of that condition, who is effectively brain dead and who is being forced to breathe by a machine, could easily count as cruel and unusual punishment in some quarters.

At any rate, such treatment, given involuntarily, goes way beyond what the Church has traditionally described as 'Extaordinary' treatment, which we are entitled to refuse.

Fr Cekada was one of the few, sane commentators who pointed this out, thank goodness.

Not sure if you are aware, but pretty much every single one of your statements here is false. Perhaps go back and read through the facts of the case.

[awkward customer]

It's worth emphasising that Terry Schiavo could not take food or liquid by mouth.  That's why she needed a feeding tube inserted into her stomach.

One of the very first things the doctor points out is that it is not true that she could not swallow.

"4) The parts of Terri Schiavo's brain which would allow her to swallow on her own were intact and, in fact, she did not suffer from medically significant dysphagia (swallowing difficulty). If she had, she would have been dead long ago from a condition known as aspiration pneumonia, an infection in the lungs which is the result of inhaling one's own saliva."

https://www.wcbohio.com/articles/the-execution-of-terri-schiavo-1

The doctor who never met Terri Schiavo, who never actually examined her in person, but who came to the "facts" by looking at the scans and notes and watching the videos her family made by shining strong lights into her eyes?

Is that the doctor you mean?

The doctor who was never cross-examined on his claims.

Terri Schiavo needed a feeding tube inserted into her stomach precisely because she could not eat and drink on her own.  But carry on believing the doctor who never examined her in person over the doctors who did.

[awkward customer]

I like to remind myself that, the same clergy that are the biggest asserters that the 1968 NREC is "invalid" and the 1968 NRPO is "doubtful" also promulgated the idea that Michael Schiavo had a "God given right" to murder Terri Schiavo (Cekada) ....

What?

Forcing a feeding tube into the stomach of someone with lifelong Bulimia whose body has been destroyed by the ravages of that condition, who is effectively brain dead and who is being forced to breathe by a machine, could easily count as cruel and unusual punishment in some quarters.

At any rate, such treatment, given involuntarily, goes way beyond what the Church has traditionally described as 'Extaordinary' treatment, which we are entitled to refuse.

Fr Cekada was one of the few, sane commentators who pointed this out, thank goodness.

Not sure if you are aware, but pretty much every single one of your statements here is false. Perhaps go back and read through the facts of the case.

Which statements are false?

The one about feeding tubes being Extraordinary treatment?

Is that false?

[awkward customer]

If Terri Shiavo was murdered by her husband, then Princess Grace of Monaco was also murdered by her husband.

The fact is, neither of them was murdered.  Their husbands and doctors - the doctors who actually examined their patients in person, that is - were acting in conformity with Church teaching on Ordinary/Extraordinary teachings and it is only people caught up in some kind of ill-informed emotionalism fuelled by a dodgy doctor who believe otherwise.

[queen.saints]

Forcing a feeding tube into the stomach of someone with lifelong Bulimia whose body has been destroyed by the ravages of that condition, who is effectively brain dead and who is being forced to breathe by a machine, could easily count as cruel and unusual punishment in some quarters.

At any rate, such treatment, given involuntarily, goes way beyond what the Church has traditionally described as 'Extaordinary' treatment, which we are entitled to refuse.

Fr Cekada was one of the few, sane commentators who pointed this out, thank goodness.

Not sure if you are aware, but pretty much every single one of your statements here is false. Perhaps go back and read through the facts of the case.

Which statements are false?

Line by line:

1)"Forcing a feeding tube into the stomach of someone"

The feeding tube had already been in place for years with no problems. The very manual that Fr. Cekada quotes says that once a treatment is already in place it would be extremely ill advised to remove it even when it is causing extreme pain and no perceivable benefit, because of the possible scandal. In this case there was no pain and plenty of benefit.

Added to that, her own nurses said they had been able to feed her normally until her husband told them to stop.

2) "with lifelong Bulimia"

a- the bulimia is highly disputed

b- even if true, is only claimed to have been present for a short period of time.

3) "whose body has been destroyed by the ravages of that condition"

Her body was in a healthy, fed, state for 15 years before she was forcibly starved to death and was strong enough to take two weeks to die, which is very good.

4) "who is effectively brain dead"

She was able to interact and smile with her family and friends. She was not even unconscious, let alone brain dead.

5) "who is being forced to breathe by a machine"

Completely false. She was able to breathe fine on her own.

6) "could easily count as cruel and unusual punishment"

There was never any case presented that she herself found the feeding tube itself to be at all painful, let alone cruel.

The question was of whether or not her husband, not her, found it burdensome for her to be alive at all in her condition, regardless of feeding method, because he claimed she told him she'd rather die than be a burden.

On the other hand, she was in complete agony and distress for two weeks without water or food.

7) "such treatment, given involuntarily"

Never any evidence that she wouldn't have agreed to it.

8 ) "goes way beyond what the Church has traditionally described as 'Extaordinary' treatment"

Pope Pius XII says that "ordinary means" are those that are "do not involve any grave burdens for oneself or another".

Everyone agrees that food and water, administered normally, is "ordinary means" so this can serve a baseline for what cannot be considered a "grave burden".

And yet, as many people have already pointed out, a PEG feeding tube is often cheaper and easier than mouth feeding. It is even less burdensome than the most basic care we are obliged to provide.

And in this case, she was denied even regular food and water for two weeks.

9) "which we are entitled to refuse."

The very manual that Fr. Cekada quotes says that we are not allowed to deny even extraordinary care in all circumstances.

10) "Fr Cekada was one of the few, sane commentators who pointed this out"

Fr Cekada's original arguments were proven wrong and/or irrelevant to the particular case at hand; he then changed his arguments to be entirely different ones, again, not relevant to the case and purely hypothetical.

[Baylee]

Novus Ordo sacraments either are valid or they aren't. It doesn't matter if the hierarchy declares anything or not. If the solemn, holy and orthodox priest offers the sacrifice of the Mass, if he wasn't ordained by a valid bishop, then what he's distributing to his congregation is just bread.  Therefore, the laity should try to be informed so they can know if they're receiving the body and blood of Jesus or just bread.

Not to mention getting true absolution in the confessional.

Thanks for trying to bring this thread back to the discussion of the New Rites.  It's interesting that the Schiavo case was brought up rather than argue against Fr Cekada's in-depth study on the New Rites (which ALL sede clergy agree with not to mention others who are NOT sede).

It seems that there are those here who will question/sift quite a bit about the Novus Ordo church, its hierarchy, and its teachings.  For example, they believe it promulgated errors, heresy, false doctrine at Vatican II or its canonizations are false, but it's not even possible that the very same hierarchy could have promulgated false rites?  It's this refusal to even look at this which boggles my mind.

Perhaps those who wish to continue speaking about the Schiavo case can resurrect the thread I posted above (or create a new one?)

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

the doctors who actually examined their patients in person

In the United States, there is no shortage of vultures in the medical profession who will coach family to remove nutrition and hydration from someone who is obviously still capable of assimilating it.

[queen.saints]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Warmbier

And just a reminder that feeding tubes are such ordinary means these days that even the North Korean Prison system provides them to prisoners when necessary. It was only when he was returned to America that Otto Warmbier was promptly killed by his own parents.

[Bonaventure]

(1) Lay people have zero responsibility to solve the crisis in Rome even intellectually.
(2) Lay people have no responsibility to resolve the crisis on a personal level, either.  If it is God's judgment, at my death, that I should have "made a decision" about PF or whoever, He will surprise me with that news at that time, and until then, no one is authorized to tell any other Catholic about a manufactured moral responsibility to "figure it all out."

We are responsible to comply with divine positive law and the precepts of the Church whether or not PF is doing so and whether or not he imagines (wrongly) that he is at liberty to change divine law, such as the Sixth Commandment -- and whether or not we make a public statement about what he is doing and the state of his office and his soul.

The people who may very well be held responsible are the clerical personnel involved in a refusal to lead and a refusal to clarify -- a refusal to complete the duties of their own ecclesiastical state in life, which are not a lay person's state in life. We don't have to internalize other people's responsibilities to act on heresy, let alone take the blame for the sins of confused hierarchy or outright heretics. We have plenty of our own sins, and we will be responsible only for those.

Completely agree with Bonaventure that only God can solve this, and even most N.O. priests at this time, not to mention all trad priests I'm acquainted with, are convinced that both the Church and the world are too far gone at this point for either to repair itself without divine intervention.

Lay people do have an obligation to know the truth so they can act on it accordingly.

Let's say that sedevacantists are right for this argument.
Bishops consecrated in the rite of Paul VI are not valid and therefore, none of the priests they've ordained are valid.

Therefore, none of the priests in question are actual priests and none of their sacraments are valid. Lay people have an obligation to receive valid sacraments. If they are going to these lay priests, they are not receiving valid sacraments and are therefore, in unknowing disobedience to God. If the above scenario is true, would you agree that lay people do have an obligation to make a change to ensure they receive valid sacraments?

(I separated out the non sequiturs for emphasis.)  There would be no situation that the pre-V2 Church has ever proposed to the faithful that would entail lay people making a judgment about the validity of a sacramental rite -- for any of the 7 sacraments. And this is one of the root problems with SV'ism in principle. Again, lay people have zip authority to make dogmatic pronouncements outside of the deposit of faith and outside of confirming what the pre-V2 Church has pronounced. 

A rite is a change in certain externals of form; it is not a change in doctrine.  What priests are allowed to say -- and have said -- are observations or perceptions of the efficacy of certain rites.  Thus, Fr. Ripperger has weighed in on the superior form of the traditional rite of baptism, largely because of the extensive exorcisms and the general thoroughness of it.  Ditto for him and other priests when it comes to Extreme Unction vs. the (new) Anointing of the Sick.

Superiority of form is a separate matter than validity.  Validity for a sacrament consists of essential form and essential matter.  Thus, we must hear, "I absolve you..in the name of...[etc.]" at the end of our Confession, and we have a right to insist on having our real sins heard and not hear an abusive priest dismiss our recital "because one sin is enough." Maybe the second sin is a mortal one; how would he know that?  I mean technically, the matter is our sorrow/contrition, but he needs to know: contrition for what?  Or he will not be able to act as the judge in persona Christi.

Many modern priests use a variety of "rites" for Confession, and we've all been there:  more often than not, such confessions are highly disappointing, to say the least. But if they meet the bare minimum requirements for matter and form (including our part), then the sacrament has been administered and received, albeit not ideally or as profoundly as possible.

But because the Sacrament of Penance seems to be subject to the most regular abuse by diocesan priests, I do avoid their confessionals if possible.  That said, the most powerful confessional experience I ever had was to a very holy diocesan-ordained priest whose adult Masses and children's Masses I attended regularly when my children were little.  I also studied with him in theology school, which was how I got to know him. In confession, he read my soul.  He was the only priest to have done that, and I have never had that experience before or after that.  When a priest reads your soul, you know without question that Jesus Christ is present in that moment...unless you're like the ancient Romans and believe superstitiously in divination. Or -- and I know this is a sensitive word but it applies in this case -- if one believes that one has Gnostic knowledge about the efficacy of newer sacramental rites that the rest of us lack.

There have been a few occasions in which I have received more sacramental graces at a very reverent N.O.M. Holy Communion (in the past) than at a TLM.  The only difference in those particular cases?  My disposition.

These differences and exceptions are not meant to blur the clear differences between old and new rites.  I offer them in sincere disclosure but also to illustrate how important it is not to arrogate to ourselves judgments that only the Church can make about validity of sacraments.  We should always seek the highest rite we can for the fullness of graces available -- contingent upon our disposition - but validity itself is an absolute quality, not a matter of degree. A rite is valid or invalid, not valid or "questionable."  Form and matter.

Fr. Ripperger, who quite prefers the TLM and I believe says it exclusively -- has no patience with assertions that hosts consecrated by diocesan priests are "not really consecrated."  He says that the proof that these hosts bear the divinity of Christ is that the demons respond exactly the same to hosts consecrated by any Catholic priest.  He has seen the syndrome many times and has watched the demons respond no differently to either.

Pope Pius XII infallibly declared what is required in the sacramental form for the consecration of a bishop. Paul VI changed the form. His new form does not match what Pius XII declared is required for validity. It matches the Anglican form which Pope Leo XIII declared to be utterly null and void. Therefore it's reasonable to assert that bishops consecrated in the new form are not valid the same as a baptism is not valid if the priest says, "We baptize" instead of "I baptize".

Laity or vagi clergy can assert whatever they like, but until and unless the Church definitively settles the matter, any such assertion will remain simply a private opinion.

I like to remind myself that, the same clergy that are the biggest asserters that the 1968 NREC is "invalid" and the 1968 NRPO is "doubtful" also promulgated the idea that Michael Schiavo had a "God given right" to murder Terri Schiavo (Cekada), and the Prefect of Sanborn's seminary (Despósito), has stated that one "una cum Mass" is more offensive to Almighty God than every single abortion in the history of mankind. (Source: https://x.com/frdesposito/status/434837570053087232?s=46)

Funnily enough, that would mean that the una cum ordination rite and subsequent Mass of his superior and the man who ordained him (Sanborn) was also more offensive to Almighty God, than aforementioned abortions.

Novus Ordo sacraments either are valid or they aren't. It doesn't matter if the hierarchy declares anything or not. If the solemn, holy and orthodox priest offers the sacrifice of the Mass, if he wasn't ordained by a valid bishop, then what he's distributing to his congregation is just bread.  Therefore, the laity should try to be informed so they can know if they're receiving the body and blood of Jesus or just bread.

Sure, and the same priests who have prominently made the argument that declares that they are "invalid" or "dubious" have also declared that attending an "una cum Mass" is a "mortal sin," that a single una cum Mass is more offensive to almighty God than every single abortion ever performed in history, and would deny the sacraments, including communion and absolution, to someone who attended an SSPX Mass, Eastern Rite Divine Liturgy, etc. if said "una cum."

These are the men that @Baylee and @awkward customer are valiantly defending and championing in this thread.

I wonder if these individuals attend an "una cum" Mass, whether SSPX or otherwise. Even if on vacation, for example.

If they did, the late Fr. Cekada would refuse them communion and absolution, as would Bishop Dolan, and as will Bishop Sanborn.

It all goes back to my original point that these are not infallible, authoritative arbiters of the faith. Rather, vagi (wandering), autocephalus clergy, answerable to only themselves, who have their own agendas.

So yes, one could be worshipping bread or not; these men would also argue that one who does not go to their approved list of Masses are also committing "mortal sins."

Their unofficial mouthpiece, True Restoration/Heiner, is now warning people to stay away from the CMRI, and these same people cannot get on the same page about baptisms. Sanborn/MHT/RCI have declared that, unless one has positive proof via video/photos/testimony, all "NO Baptisms" performed after January 1, 1990, are dubious and need to be conditionally performed, before one can receive sacraments from them.

If that is the lot one wishes to associate with, be my guest.

I've got nothing more to say or add to this conversation.

[awkward customer]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Warmbier

And just a reminder that feeding tubes are such ordinary means these days that even the North Korean Prison system provides them to prisoners when necessary. It was only when he was returned to America that Otto Warmbier was promptly killed by his own parents.

But are feeding tubes Ordinary or Extraordinary treatment according to the Church?  This is the crux of the matter not whether the secular world thinks and acts as if they are.

Rather than continue to disrupt the thread, maybe a new thread is needed which addresses this question.

[Michael Wilson]

To "excommunicate" people for attending "Una Cum" masses is way beyond the powers of any priest or even bishop; especially non-residential bishops who have no ordinary jurisdiction. The Church has not made any official declaration on the status of the Conciliar Popes, either for or against; even on the "intrinsic" validity of the new sacramental rites; so the views of trads on this subject, remain on the level of "opinions"; and have no juridic effect on the Catholic faithful.
So one can regard such "excos" as totally worthless.

[Baylee]

(1) Lay people have zero responsibility to solve the crisis in Rome even intellectually.
(2) Lay people have no responsibility to resolve the crisis on a personal level, either.  If it is God's judgment, at my death, that I should have "made a decision" about PF or whoever, He will surprise me with that news at that time, and until then, no one is authorized to tell any other Catholic about a manufactured moral responsibility to "figure it all out."

We are responsible to comply with divine positive law and the precepts of the Church whether or not PF is doing so and whether or not he imagines (wrongly) that he is at liberty to change divine law, such as the Sixth Commandment -- and whether or not we make a public statement about what he is doing and the state of his office and his soul.

The people who may very well be held responsible are the clerical personnel involved in a refusal to lead and a refusal to clarify -- a refusal to complete the duties of their own ecclesiastical state in life, which are not a lay person's state in life. We don't have to internalize other people's responsibilities to act on heresy, let alone take the blame for the sins of confused hierarchy or outright heretics. We have plenty of our own sins, and we will be responsible only for those.

Completely agree with Bonaventure that only God can solve this, and even most N.O. priests at this time, not to mention all trad priests I'm acquainted with, are convinced that both the Church and the world are too far gone at this point for either to repair itself without divine intervention.

Lay people do have an obligation to know the truth so they can act on it accordingly.

Let's say that sedevacantists are right for this argument.
Bishops consecrated in the rite of Paul VI are not valid and therefore, none of the priests they've ordained are valid.

Therefore, none of the priests in question are actual priests and none of their sacraments are valid. Lay people have an obligation to receive valid sacraments. If they are going to these lay priests, they are not receiving valid sacraments and are therefore, in unknowing disobedience to God. If the above scenario is true, would you agree that lay people do have an obligation to make a change to ensure they receive valid sacraments?

(I separated out the non sequiturs for emphasis.)  There would be no situation that the pre-V2 Church has ever proposed to the faithful that would entail lay people making a judgment about the validity of a sacramental rite -- for any of the 7 sacraments. And this is one of the root problems with SV'ism in principle. Again, lay people have zip authority to make dogmatic pronouncements outside of the deposit of faith and outside of confirming what the pre-V2 Church has pronounced. 

A rite is a change in certain externals of form; it is not a change in doctrine.  What priests are allowed to say -- and have said -- are observations or perceptions of the efficacy of certain rites.  Thus, Fr. Ripperger has weighed in on the superior form of the traditional rite of baptism, largely because of the extensive exorcisms and the general thoroughness of it.  Ditto for him and other priests when it comes to Extreme Unction vs. the (new) Anointing of the Sick.

Superiority of form is a separate matter than validity.  Validity for a sacrament consists of essential form and essential matter.  Thus, we must hear, "I absolve you..in the name of...[etc.]" at the end of our Confession, and we have a right to insist on having our real sins heard and not hear an abusive priest dismiss our recital "because one sin is enough." Maybe the second sin is a mortal one; how would he know that?  I mean technically, the matter is our sorrow/contrition, but he needs to know: contrition for what?  Or he will not be able to act as the judge in persona Christi.

Many modern priests use a variety of "rites" for Confession, and we've all been there:  more often than not, such confessions are highly disappointing, to say the least. But if they meet the bare minimum requirements for matter and form (including our part), then the sacrament has been administered and received, albeit not ideally or as profoundly as possible.

But because the Sacrament of Penance seems to be subject to the most regular abuse by diocesan priests, I do avoid their confessionals if possible.  That said, the most powerful confessional experience I ever had was to a very holy diocesan-ordained priest whose adult Masses and children's Masses I attended regularly when my children were little.  I also studied with him in theology school, which was how I got to know him. In confession, he read my soul.  He was the only priest to have done that, and I have never had that experience before or after that.  When a priest reads your soul, you know without question that Jesus Christ is present in that moment...unless you're like the ancient Romans and believe superstitiously in divination. Or -- and I know this is a sensitive word but it applies in this case -- if one believes that one has Gnostic knowledge about the efficacy of newer sacramental rites that the rest of us lack.

There have been a few occasions in which I have received more sacramental graces at a very reverent N.O.M. Holy Communion (in the past) than at a TLM.  The only difference in those particular cases?  My disposition.

These differences and exceptions are not meant to blur the clear differences between old and new rites.  I offer them in sincere disclosure but also to illustrate how important it is not to arrogate to ourselves judgments that only the Church can make about validity of sacraments.  We should always seek the highest rite we can for the fullness of graces available -- contingent upon our disposition - but validity itself is an absolute quality, not a matter of degree. A rite is valid or invalid, not valid or "questionable."  Form and matter.

Fr. Ripperger, who quite prefers the TLM and I believe says it exclusively -- has no patience with assertions that hosts consecrated by diocesan priests are "not really consecrated."  He says that the proof that these hosts bear the divinity of Christ is that the demons respond exactly the same to hosts consecrated by any Catholic priest.  He has seen the syndrome many times and has watched the demons respond no differently to either.

Pope Pius XII infallibly declared what is required in the sacramental form for the consecration of a bishop. Paul VI changed the form. His new form does not match what Pius XII declared is required for validity. It matches the Anglican form which Pope Leo XIII declared to be utterly null and void. Therefore it's reasonable to assert that bishops consecrated in the new form are not valid the same as a baptism is not valid if the priest says, "We baptize" instead of "I baptize".

Laity or vagi clergy can assert whatever they like, but until and unless the Church definitively settles the matter, any such assertion will remain simply a private opinion.

I like to remind myself that, the same clergy that are the biggest asserters that the 1968 NREC is "invalid" and the 1968 NRPO is "doubtful" also promulgated the idea that Michael Schiavo had a "God given right" to murder Terri Schiavo (Cekada), and the Prefect of Sanborn's seminary (Despósito), has stated that one "una cum Mass" is more offensive to Almighty God than every single abortion in the history of mankind. (Source: https://x.com/frdesposito/status/434837570053087232?s=46)

Funnily enough, that would mean that the una cum ordination rite and subsequent Mass of his superior and the man who ordained him (Sanborn) was also more offensive to Almighty God, than aforementioned abortions.

Novus Ordo sacraments either are valid or they aren't. It doesn't matter if the hierarchy declares anything or not. If the solemn, holy and orthodox priest offers the sacrifice of the Mass, if he wasn't ordained by a valid bishop, then what he's distributing to his congregation is just bread.  Therefore, the laity should try to be informed so they can know if they're receiving the body and blood of Jesus or just bread.

Sure, and the same priests who have prominently made the argument that declares that they are "invalid" or "dubious" have also declared that attending an "una cum Mass" is a "mortal sin," that a single una cum Mass is more offensive to almighty God than every single abortion ever performed in history, and would deny the sacraments, including communion and absolution, to someone who attended an SSPX Mass, Eastern Rite Divine Liturgy, etc. if said "una cum."

These are the men that @Baylee and @awkward customer are valiantly defending and championing in this thread.

I wonder if these individuals attend an "una cum" Mass, whether SSPX or otherwise. Even if on vacation, for example.

If they did, the late Fr. Cekada would refuse them communion and absolution, as would Bishop Dolan, and as will Bishop Sanborn.

It all goes back to my original point that these are not infallible, authoritative arbiters of the faith. Rather, vagi (wandering), autocephalus clergy, answerable to only themselves, who have their own agendas.

So yes, one could be worshipping bread or not; these men would also argue that one who does not go to their approved list of Masses are also committing "mortal sins."

Their unofficial mouthpiece, True Restoration/Heiner, is now warning people to stay away from the CMRI, and these same people cannot get on the same page about baptisms. Sanborn/MHT/RCI have declared that, unless one has positive proof via video/photos/testimony, all "NO Baptisms" performed after January 1, 1990, are dubious and need to be conditionally performed, before one can receive sacraments from them.

If that is the lot one wishes to associate with, be my guest.

I've got nothing more to say or add to this conversation.

I see you keep focusing on certain sede clergy and ignoring that they aren't the only clergy (sede or non-sede) to assert the NO Ordinations and Consecrations are at least doubtful. 

I'm not surprised you have nothing else to add here. You probably shouldn't since you only seem capable of adding emotional comments to the thread. A discussion could be had about the New Rites, but you're too wrapped up in your hatred for/resentment towards certain members of the clergy.