1.  Nobody can determine if the new rites are 100% valid or 100% invalid.  It’s a moving target.  The new rites are inherently ambiguous, just like V2.  That’s why nobody (especially the sspx) can claim (with a straight face) that the new rites are valid.  There are countless stories of novus ordo priests who left to go to FSSP or ICK because they doubted their own priesthood, once they started looking into the problems of the new prayers. 
For the sspx to come out, 40 years after V2, and all of a sudden say they are accepting of the new rites as valid is the doctrinally dumbest, most liturgically ludicrous, most theologically idiotic thing to say. 
Then they have the audacity to contradict themselves by saying “We have our own investigation process for each new rite priest.”
Which one is it?  If the new rites are valid, what are you investigating?  Why is there a need to investigate if there is no doubt?
As usual, the sspx wants to play both sides — new Rome snd Tradition.  +ABL was principled.  The new-sspx is a collection of weak, manipulative, fence-sitters. 
p.s.  Your comments about the Orthodox leaving the Church due to doubt is just wrong.  The analogy is stupid and historically inaccurate.  The Orthodox left due to pride and were schismatic from day 1.  Doubt had nothing to do with it.   

Pride was definitely a problem in the Great Schism, but doubt also had everything to do with it. Those who went with the schism doubted the Church's position on filioque. They second guessed the authority of the Church. They thought they had a case against it but time has shown they didn't. Same thing now. 

Sounds as if you are having doubts about the SSPX's position in general. That's a hard place to be.  With regards to the validly of the New Mass, you are right, we don't know for sure that it is not valid. And the probability lies on the side of it being valid as Our Lord would not leave most his flock orphans. But for those that understand the difference, I believe the onus is on them to offer God the richer, far superior rite; the best fruits as it states scripturally. Anyway, the history of this re-ordination policy issue needs further investigation, because if, as I'm wondering, the SSPX are merely reverting back to what was the original policy (?) - investigate, and only re-ordain when there is a serious doubt hanging over a NO ordination - it would greatly put my own mind at ease.

Could you explain what you mean by the bolded? 

As an aside, there is no such thing as "a richer, far superior rite" because what you are referring to is the Holy Sacrifice of Christ on the cross. There was only one sacrifice, that one sacrifice is the one and only supreme sacrifice of God, there is no superior / inferior. The TLM is that sacrifice, the NOM is not that sacrifice, period. Do not be confused or spread confusion about this. It's as obvious as the difference between the NOM and the TLM.

To get back on topic, the good archbishop said that NO ordinations were certainly valid if done "by the book." So if after investigating, the NO ordination it is proven to have been done "by the book," no conditional ordination is required. That was the position of the good archbishop, that is the position of the SSPX.     
 

Effectively you are stating that the New Rite Mass is invalid. You have no authority to do so. You can have a private doubt but not even Archbishop Lefebrvre said it was definitely invalid. That is because the offertory is still to be found within the New Rite. Remember, a Rite is but the ceremonial practice of a distinctive liturgy that encuмbrances the offering of the Body, Blood, soul and Divinity of Christ. With regards to the Latin Rite, its liturgy is rich and complete, said in the universal language of the Church with a clear expression of the Holy Sacrifice. The liturgy of the New Rite, is no longer rich, or complete or said in the language of the Church. Moreover, the visual emphasis is no longer the Sacrifice but the meal. Thus, it is a fair characterization to say the Old traditional Rite is a richer, far superior rite.

Regarding the re-ordinations, that is good to hear so thank you for posting. It would be helpful if you could supply a reference at some point? There are a number of Cathinfo members who are convinced that re-ordinations were a standard policy and are thus accusing post 2012 SSPX of liberalism in this area.

Sounds as if you are having doubts about the SSPX's position in general. That's a hard place to be.  With regards to the validly of the New Mass, you are right, we don't know for sure that it is not valid. And the probability lies on the side of it being valid as Our Lord would not leave most his flock orphans. But for those that understand the difference, I believe the onus is on them to offer God the richer, far superior rite; the best fruits as it states scripturally. Anyway, the history of this re-ordination policy issue needs further investigation, because if, as I'm wondering, the SSPX are merely reverting back to what was the original policy (?) - investigate, and only re-ordain when there is a serious doubt hanging over a NO ordination - it would greatly put my own mind at ease.

No, I'm not having doubts about the SSPX's position in general. I think they recognize that the NO is valid and they can no longer cast doubt on it. The Resistance SSPX is another story. Sedes are another story. There is no question that the TLM is the rite Catholics must defend, but they cannot imply the NO is invalid or in doubt. Investigation of various priests joining the SSPX is always a good thing. Why not?

Validity does NOT automatically mean it’s pleasing to God.  The new mass could be valid and immoral at the same time.  Your theology is sloppy. 

If a Catholic couple ask a valid priest to marry them, under a beautiful waterfall in a picturesque rainforest, while the couple and priest are wearing swimsuits….this would be valid.  It would also be a grave sin, illicit and immoral. 

The new mass is contrary to Trent, and to Quo Primum.  It is illicit and immoral.  Even if valid.

Validity means Jesus Christ is present on the altar. That alone is pleasing to God. The crucifixion was a brutal offense against our suffering Lord, yet by his forgiveness, it is the basis for liturgy. So Jesus Christ can suffer defacement and destruction, but the liturgy cannot?  Was Jesus less than what he was before he was brutalized? Then neither is the liturgy. 

Validity means Jesus Christ is present on the altar. That alone is pleasing to God. The crucifixion was a brutal offense against our suffering Lord, yet by his forgiveness, it is the basis for liturgy. So Jesus Christ can suffer defacement and destruction, but the liturgy cannot?  Was Jesus less than what he was before he was brutalized? Then neither is the liturgy.

Actually, no, the validity of the Mass vs valid confection of the Blessed Sacrament are two different things.  A priest can say the essential words over Bread and Wine, and validly confect the Sacrament.  Jesus would be present, however, this is not a valid Mass.  There has been no sacrifice.  This is gravely immoral and illicit, but it still confects a valid Sacrament, even if done outside of Mass, or within an attempted "Mass" that was an invalid sacrifice for other reasons.  

This would not be pleasing to God.  A priest who knowingly does such a thing is guilty of the mortal sins of sacrilege and disobedience and incurs suspension reserved to the Holy See.  

For anyone still confused, I’ve included a verbatim compilation of Archbishop Lefebvre’s own words on the doubtfulness of the new sacraments and the need for conditional reordinations. No speculation—just read.

Quotes by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on the Doubtfulness of the Conciliar Sacraments





1972

… that is how things stand today. It is evangelization which predominates, no longer sanctification. So, yet another bad definition of the priest, and so long as the true definition is no longer given, all the consequences must be borne. The same is true of all the sacraments. Consider all the sacraments one after the other; they are no longer defined as in the past. (Archbishop Lefebvre, A Bishop Speaks to Us, 1972)



1974

It can happen that the Sacraments are not valid. In any case it can occur that the Sacraments are doubtfully valid, that is, that they are doubtful. For the holy Chrism is the matter of the Sacrament of Confirmation, and today, unfortunately, it is heard that the holy Chrism is sometimes made with oils which, according to what the writers of theology have taught us—these are not personal feelings—these matters are doubtful. We have always been taught that not just any oil can be used to make the holy Chrism. www.angelusonline.org/index.phpsection=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=1311


We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth. We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it. All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments…This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Declaration of 1974)



1975

I know you do not want priests who may administer Sacraments invalidly.

Footnote: 3. With respect to Sacraments of doubtful validity, today bishops rarely confirm. They delegate their vicars-general or other priests, and many of these may change the authorized formulae. Because the particular sacramental grace of each Sacrament has to be signified explicitly and because many of these changes in wording do not signify the Sacrament in question, it follows that the Sacrament is doubtfully valid. It is not permissible to toy with the formulae of the Sacraments, just as in the Sacrifice of the Mass we may not tamper with the wording of the Consecration. It is necessary to perform as the Church has always intended. www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2285


It is because we believe that our whole Faith is endangered by the post-Conciliar reforms and changes that it is our duty to disobey, and to maintain the traditions of our Faith. The greatest service we can render to the Catholic Church, to Peter’s successor, to the salvation of souls and of our own, is to say “No” to the reformed Liberal Church, because we believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God made Man, Who is neither Liberal nor reformable. Letter to Friends and Benefactors, September 1975



1976

The balance-sheet for the ten years following the Council is catastrophic in all departments. Churchmen, herein following numerous bad examples, thought that they could replace what Our Lord instituted with institutions better suited to the modern world, forgetting that Jesus Christ is God “yesterday, today and for ever” (Heb. 13:8), and that His Work is suited to all times and to all men. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, March 1976)


In these critical moments, we must remain with that which is surest. We must avoid doubtful things. We must make our stand on things that are certain, absolutely certain, without a thousandth per cent of doubt: our Creed, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacraments, devotion to the Most Blessed Virgin. We cannot go wrong there. www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/ArchbishopLefebvre/Sermon_by_Archbishop_Lefebvre_on_May_2_1976.htm


The union desired by these Liberal Catholics, a union between the Church and the Revolution and subversion is, for the Church, an adulterous union, adulterous. And that adulterous union can produce only bastards. And who are those bastards? They are our rites: the rite of Mass is a bastard rite, the sacraments are bastard sacraments-we no longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or which do not give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ or if it does not give them. The priests coming out of the seminaries do not themselves know what they are. In Rome it was the Archbishop of Cincinnati who said: "Why are there no more vocations? Because the Church no longer knows what a priest is." How then can She still form priests if She does not know what a priest is? The priests coming out of the seminaries are bastard priests. They do not know what they are. They do not know that they were made to go up to the altar to offer the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to give Jesus Christ to souls, and to call souls to Jesus Christ. That is what a priest is. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon in Lille, France 1976)


It is for that that Ecône remains in being, it is for that that Ecône exists, because we believe that what the Catholics have taught, what the Popes have taught, what the Councils have taught for twenty centuries, we cannot possibly abandon. We cannot possibly change our faith: we have our Credo, and we will keep it till we die. We cannot change our Credo, we cannot change the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we cannot change our Sacraments, changing them into human works, purely human, which no longer carry the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Ordination Sermon of Fr. Denis Roch 1976)



1977

“The radical and extensive changes made in the Roman Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and their resemblance to the modifications made by Luther oblige Catholics who remain loyal to their faith to question the validity of this New Rite.”(Écône, February 2, 1977)


The important thing is to save the Catholic Faith inscribed in our catechisms, to save the means of living it by the grace of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments, to save the means of passing it on to future generations through Catholic schools and seminaries. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, October 1977)



1978

Satan, the father of lies, as Our Lord Jesus calls him, has the extraordinary talent of finding out some words, to which he assigns a new meaning so that from their ambiguity, he achieves acceptance of the destructive falsehood which overthrows the best established societies. He found it in this “ecuмenism” of the Council which has created an ecuмenical liturgy, an ecuмenical Bible, and ecuмenical catechism, uniting truth and falsehood – marrying the true and the false.  The most disastrous result of this marriage is the Catholic-Protestant Mass, the poisoned source afterwards yielding countless ravages: relinquishment of the Church, of the true Faith, sacrileges, tearing of the unity of the Church, proliferation of diverse sorts of creeds unworthy of the Church. ...  The ecuмencial Mass leads logically to apostasy. One cannot serve two masters, one cannot nourish oneself indifferently from truth or falsehood. One must, at all costs, remain bound to truth without mingling. Pope Pius IX vigorously denounced these liberal Catholics who believe they can unite falsehood and truth, good and evil, in order to please their contemporary fellowmen. Whether this poisoned ecuмenism reaches us through the hierarchy or not, the channel is not important – it is the poison that one must refuse to swallow. It is a matter of strict obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ, to the Church of all times, to all the successors of Peter. We will, therefore, keep the Catholic liturgy, the Catholic Bible and Catechism. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, March 1978)


My dear friends, we have been betrayed. Betrayed by all of those who ought to be giving us the Truth, who ought to be teaching the Ten Commandments, who ought to be teaching us the true Catechism, who ought to be giving us the true Mass – the one that the Church has always loved; the one that was said by the Saints; the one that has sanctified generations and generations! Likewise, they must give us all the Sacraments, without any doubt concerning their validity, Sacraments which are certainly valid. It is a duty for us to ask them for these things and they have a duty to give them to us. [...] We have the duty not to collaborate in the Church's destruction. But, on the contrary, to work – to work ardently, calmly, serenely, for the Church's construction, for the re-construction of the Church, for the preservation of the Church. Each one of you can do your duty in this regard-in your villages, in your parishes, in your institutions, in your professions – wherever you are. Set up true parishes, Catholic parishes. And let these Catholic parishes be confided to true priests. (Sermon - Ordinations June 29, 1978)



1979

Apologia Vol. I
Preface and Footnote [by Michael Davies]:

The Archbishop appreciated that the liturgical reform in particular must inevitably compromise Catholic teaching on the priesthood and the Mass, the twin pillars upon which our faith is built.1 The sixteenth-century Protestant Reformers had also realized that if they could undermine the priesthood there would be no Mass and the Church would be destroyed. The Archbishop founded the Society of St. Pius X with its seminary at Econe not as an act of rebellion but to perpetuate the Catholic priesthood, and for no other purpose.

1. Let anyone who doubts this compare the new and old rites of ordination. A detailed comparison has been made in my book The Order of Melchisedech. sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_one/Introduction.htm


The majority of Catholics find themselves either without priests or directed by priests who no longer have the Catholic faith. Indeed, where priests are less than forty years old, and there are few of these, they have been badly trained in groups of formation that have a Modernist, Protestant, even Marxist spirit. If priests are older, they are using catechisms replete with errors, even heresies, and they use ecuмenical Bibles to instruct their parishioners. The extent of the disaster is enormous. We rejoice at your insistence that the priest must be holy. But who will give him holiness if the seminaries have bad teachers? If the Church is to be renewed the priesthood must be renewed at all costs, and so, accordingly, must the seminaries. But true seminaries cannot be established without restoring the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the spirit defined by the Council of Trent, and at the same time restoring the Sacraments and the entire Liturgy in this same spirit. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to Pope John Paul II, 25 April 1979, Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre, Volume II)



1980

But one cannot change what Jesus Christ has established. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacraments, the Creed, our catechism, the Sacred Scriptures - all come from Jesus Christ. To change them is to change the establishment of Jesus Christ. Impossible! One cannot say that the Church has been mistaken; if something is wrong one must look for the reason somewhere, but not in the Church. They also say that the Church must change as modem man changes, that as man has a new way of life, so too the Church must have another doctrine - a new Mass, new Sacraments, a new catechism, new seminaries - and, in this way, everything has gone to ruin. Everything has been ruined!... The Church is hardly recognizable today. The ceremonies - the half - Protestant, half-Catholic liturgy - are a circus; it is no longer a Mystery. The Sacred Mystery of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - a great Mystery, heavenly and sublime - is no longer considered such. (Archbishop Lefebvre, "What is Happening in the Church?" Venice 1980)


We must refuse to compromise with those who deny the Divinity of Our Lord, or with any false Ecuмenism. We must fight against atheism and laicism in order to help Our Lord to reign over families and over society. We must protect the worship of the Church, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Sacraments instituted by Our Lord, practicing them according to the rites honored by twenty centuries of tradition. Thus we will properly honor Our Lord, and thus be assured of receiving His grace. ... It is because the novelties which have invaded the Church since the Council diminish the adoration and the honor due to Our Lord, and implicitly throw doubt upon His divinity, that we refuse them. These novelties do not come from the Holy Ghost, nor from His Church, but from those who are imbued with the spirit of Modernism, and with all the errors which convey this spirit, condemned with so much courage and energy by St. Pius X. This holy Pope said to the bishops of France with regard to the Sillon movement: “The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but the men of tradition.” ... The Church cannot content herself with doubtful Sacraments nor with ambiguous teaching. Those who have introduced these doubts and this ambiguity are not disciples of the Church. Whatever their intentions may have been, they in fact worked against the Church. The disastrous results of their industry exceed the worst examinings, and are not lessened by the apparent exceptions of a few regions. When Luther introduced the vernacular into the liturgy, the crowds rushed into the churches. But later? It is consoling to note that in the Catholic world, the sense of faith of the faithful rejects these novelties and attaches itself to Tradition. It is from this that the true renewal of the Church will come. And it is because these novelties were introduced by a clergy infected with Modernism, that the most urgent and necessary work in the Church is the formation of a profoundly Catholic clergy. We give ourselves to this work with all our heart, aided henceforth by our eighty young priests, and encouraged by the presence of our two hundred and ten major seminarians. The countries of South and Central America give us hope. The Church was saved from Arianism. She will be saved as well from Modernism. Our Lord will triumph, even when, humanly speaking, all seems lost. His ways are not our ways. Would we have chosen the Cross to triumph over Satan, the world and sin? (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, April 1980)



1982

It provided the opportunity to generalize, to extend the sickness which already existed in the Church, and to extend it in an official manner, to the extent that one can almost say now that error spreads in the Church through obedience, which is something unheard of in the Church; that we are obliged by obedience to accept doctrine which is no longer truly orthodox, and Sacraments which are doubtful. www.angelusonline.org/index.phpsection=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=642


On the contrary, the Novus Ordo is precisely the banner of this false Ecuмenism, representing the annihilation of the Catholic Religion and the Catholic priesthood. For the honor of Jesus Christ and for the honor of the Church, let us be faithful to the Catholic Mass, symbol of our Faith, banner of our holy religion. To continue this Catholic Mass we need priests, and so we need Catholic, and not Modernist seminaries, where, as always in the Church, young clerics can direct their formation and apostolate entirely towards the altar of divine Sacrifice. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, February 1982)


... the Virgin Mary had the faith and she saw beyond the wounds, beyond the pierced Heart. She saw God in her Son, her Divine Son. We too, in spite of the wounds in the Church, in spite of the difficulties, the persecution which we are enduring, even from those in authority in the Church, let us not abandon the Church, let us love the Holy Church our Mother, let us serve Her always in spite of the authorities, if necessary. In spite of these authorities who wrongly persecute us, let us stay on the same road, let us keep to the same path: we want to support the Holy Roman Catholic Church, we want to keep it going and we will keep it going by means of the Priesthood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, by the true Sacraments of Our Lord Jesus Christ, by the true catechism. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Ordination Sermon 1982)



1983

The Society does not say that all the sacraments according to the new post-conciliar rites are invalid, but that due to bad translations, the lack of proper intention, and the changes introduced in the matter and form, the number of invalid and doubtful Sacraments is increasing.In order, then, to reach a decision in the practical order concerning the doubtfulness or invalidity of sacraments given by priests imbued with the ideas of the Council, a serious study of the various circuмstances is necessary. (Letter to American Friends and Benefactors, 1983)


"Fr. Williamson tells me some of you have a difficulty in understanding, concerning the New Rite of ordination, and over the 'New Rite' Sacraments. The rule of theology for the condition of validity of Sacraments, can be found in (your manuals) of Theology. We must perform an application of these conditions. . .to the new rite Sacraments of the reform of Vatican II. In some cases it is very difficult to know if it is valid or not. Especially in the vernacular translations of the form of the sacraments. In Latin it is easier to know if its valid or invalid, but in the vernacular, it is very difficult to know if some words invalidate a sacrament. So we must do, in some cases, a detailed study of that case. You know that many priests today change the form of the Sacrament! That is another difficulty in determining validity or invalidity, e.g. 'What did this bishop say when he did this sacrament? ... We must perform an examination of these things before we can say they are valid or invalid. We must study each case." (Archbishop Lefebvre, Conferences to the Seminarians in Ridgefield, CT, April 1983)



1985

And so they reformed the Mass, [they made] the New Mass, the New Sacraments, the New Catechisms, the new Bible. All is changed by the spirit of Ecuмenism, to be closer to the Protestants. And the result is that many Catholics abandon their Faith and many become Protestants, or another religion, or they abandon all religion. We can see in your seminaries, in your convents, in your monasteries—where are the vocations? That is the destruction of the Church! (Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon, April 1985)



1986

Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre
Q. About the sacraments, when do we know if they are invalid or valid in the New Mass? It is very confusing. Will there be a point when they are not valid any more? What about baptism, marriage?

A. The answer to that is found in the principles of theology. For the validity of a sacrament you must have three things: proper matter, proper form and proper intention, the intention of the priest. Those are the three conditions which determine the validity of the sacrament. I cannot say, myself, that for all Sacraments in the Conciliar Church, these three conditions are never met. I don't think we can say that. But I think with new priests, with priests who no longer have Catholic intentions, they don't know what the proper intention is, the intention of the Church, so that perhaps the validity of their sacraments is at least doubtful.

Interpolation by Father Laisney: There are three things required for a valid sacrament: valid matter, proper form and the proper intention in the minister and it is not true to say that it never happens that the sacraments are invalid in the Novus Ordo. There are some valid baptisms, some valid Masses, but, especially with new priests who are not trained properly, who do not know what should be the intention of the Church—for instance with the Mass, they think the Mass is just a meal—then the intention becomes doubtful, and there is at least a doubt in many modern Masses. At least a doubt. Moreover, you must add the bad translation. For instance, with "for many" replaced by "for all men," which is a change in the very words of consecration. This raises another doubt on the validity of the consecration. And so you have the intention of the minister that becomes doubtful. If the minister in baptism, for instance, says: "Oh, it's just a rite of initiation"—if they reject the intention to remove Original Sin, then the intention is not proper. Because they are trained in the new way, then the intention is sometimes doubtful. www.angelusonline.org/index.phpsection=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=1196



1988

When God calls me - no doubt this will be before long - from whom would these seminarians receive the Sacrament of Orders? From conciliar bishops, who, due to their doubtful intentions, confer doubtful Sacraments? This is not possible. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Consecration of the Four Bishops Sermon)


Why Ecône? At that time perhaps you did not perfectly realize the fight that Ecône leads. You came because of your desire to be formed in Tradition. Indeed, it seemed to you that to separate oneself from Tradition was to separate oneself from the Church and, therefore, to receive possibly doubtful Sacraments and a formation which is certainly not according to the principles of the Magisterium of the Church of All Times. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Ordinations Sermon, June 1988)


Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre on the Necessity of Reordinations
Ecône, 28 oct. 1988
Very dear Mr. Wilson,

thank you very much for your kind letter. I agree with your desire to reordain conditionnaly these priests, and I have done this reordination many times. All sacraments from the modernists bishops or priests are doubtfull now. The changes are increasing and their intentions are no more catholics. We are in the time of great apostasy. We need more and more bishops and priests very catholics. It is necessary everywhere in the world. ... We must pray and work hardly to extend the kingdom of Jesus-Christ. ...Marcel Lefebvre (Archbishop Lefebvre and Questionable Priestly Ordinations in the Conciliar Church)


Archbishop Lefebvre as quoted by the Dominicans of Avrille
And we quoted the remarks of Archbishop Lefebvre on the subject of the episcopal consecration of Bp Daneels, auxiliary bishop of Brussels:

Quote

“Little booklets were published on the occasion of this consecration. For the public prayers, here is what was said and repeated by the crowd:
Be an apostle like Peter and Paul; be an apostle like the patron of this parish; be an apostle like Gandhi; be an apostle like Luther; be an apostle like (Martin) Luther King; be an apostle like Helder Camara; be an apostle like Romero. Apostle like Luther, but what intention did the bishops have when they consecrated this bishop, Bp. Daneels2?”

“It is frightening…Was this bishop really consecrated? We can doubt it anyway. And if that is the intention of the consecrators, it is incomprehensible! The situation is even more serious than we thought3.”

We could quote numerous examples of Sacraments given in the conciliar Church that were certainly invalid: confirmations given without using holy oils; baptisms where one person pours the water, while another pronounces the words, etc.4.

This is why the position of Archbishop Lefebvre in the letter that we have quoted here, appears wise: because of the particular importance of the Sacrament of Ordination, it is necessary to conditionally re-ordain the priests who come from the conciliar Church to the Traditional one. (Taken from “Le Sel de la terre” 98)

Footnotes:

1. We can make an exception for the new rite of Confirmation that permits the use of oils other than olive oil, which introduces a doubt concerning the validity, by reason of a defect of matter. We also point out that Fr Alvaro Calderon (SSPX), in the Spanish language review Si Si No No (#267, November 2014), speaks of a “slight doubt,” a “shadow” concerning the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration in itself (see Le Sel de la terre 92, p. 172).
2. Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference in Nantes (France), February 5, 1983.
3. Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference in Ecône (Switzerland), October 28, 1988. (Ibid.)



1989

And there can be no Catholic priests without Catholic bishops. We could have had, as you know, after the conversations with Rome, one bishop. But what would this bishop have been? They demanded that he have the "profile desired by the Vatican." What does that mean? That he have the spirit of the Council, the spirit of Vatican II. It is precisely to protect ourselves from that spirit which is not the Spirit of God, which is not the Catholic Spirit, that we decided to make these dear four Catholic bishops, and to transmit to the coming generations of seminarians the Catholic Priesthood. This way, you are assured that some priests shall continue to teach you and your children the True Catholic Faith and to transmit the grace through true Sacraments and the true Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. (Archbishop Lefebvre, On the Occasion of his 60th Ordination Anniversary)



1990

Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Bishop de Castro Mayer:
... because priests and faithful have a strict right to have shepherds who profess the Catholic Faith in its entirety, essential for the salvation of their souls, and to have priests who are true Catholic priests.

Secondly, because the Conciliar Church, having now reached everywhere, is spreading errors contrary to the Catholic Faith and, as a result of these errors, it has corrupted the sources of grace, which are the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments. This false Church is in an ever-deeper state of rupture with the Catholic Church. (Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre December 1990)



✠ ✠ ✠