1) Fr. Peter Scott wrote an article insisting on the conditional ordination of all conciliar clergy, which would seem to oppose your claims;
2) Regarding Bishop Lazo, though he was not consecrated Bishop in the old Rite, he was ordained priest in the old Rite, and in necessity a simple priest can be given supplied jurisdiction to confirm.
Fr Peter Scott has one opinion, Archbishop Lefebvre had another (which changed throughout the years). Fr X has another opinion, Fr Y has another. That is the SSPX in a nutshell. And so everyone has a different opinion on a whole range of issues (pope or no pope - Catholic or conciliar church - new ordinations rites valid or invalid - old or new fast and abstinence laws - old or new holy days of obligation - strictly 1962 missal or bits of the pre-1955 missal thrown in - "deal with Rome" good or bad), and that is why the SSPX is in such a mess.
With regards to Bishop Lazo, the 1917 Code of Canon Law required a simple priest to obtain permission from the Holy See to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation. The 1983 Code apparently allows the diocesan bishop to grant permission. Bishop Lazo presumably had none of the required permissions (since he was working with the SSPX at the time) so they are objectively invalid. The supplied jurisdiction card has been played to death. You cannot rely on supplied jurisdiction willy-nilly, otherwise there is no point to ordinary jurisdiction and of having a hierarchy.
Topic: Indult Mass at Sanford Florida SSPX Chapel (Read 8079 times)