Lad, what kind of reasoning is this: an ordination Rite with a possible doubt hanging over it = a doubtful ordination Rite = = Bogus Ordination = fake priest. That's some wild conjecture. Moreover, you have no premise - you have not clarified why there is a doubt over the new Ordination Rite (if it involves a single component or several or conditional); you have not clarified or outlined the SSPX's original policy and compared it to their current policy. You have not clarified what the 'Conditional Ordination' is, how it is applied, when, and by whom. No, all you've done is taken a perceived doubt (in that nothing has been established) and turned it into "a fake priest allowed by the SSPX". That's propaganda.

You even have the audacity to label it a "Positive Doubt" without proving how this legal term even applies. 'Positive' means that there's something you can point to specifically and canonically that gives reason for the 'doubt'.

And then there is the question of authority. Are individuals allowed to pass judgement according to this positive doubt? You state that His Lordship Bishop Williamson personally believed the new ordination Rite to be valid and yet chose to conditionally ordain to appeal to the doubters. Who is leading who here? 

Personally I care little about you setting up your list of "transparency" - knock yourselves out - but using it as a tool to defame and cast doubt on the SSPX is wrong and misleading. 

You even have the audacity to label it a "Positive Doubt" without proving how this legal term even applies. 'Positive' means that there's something you can point to specifically and canonically that gives reason for the 'doubt'.

Postive means that there's something you can point to.  Period.  You make garbage up about "canonically", a nonsensical term that doesn't apply to this question.  Positive differs from negative only in that the latter is a "what if" type of doubt, i.e. where you cannot concretely verify validity in a particular case, i.e. "what if Father mess up the consecration at Mass today."

It's simple fact, admitted by the SSPX even, in the first video that Robinson had to then come out and do damage control on ... that there were very significant changes made to the episcopal rite of consecration, and that the rite itself has no precedent in Tradition.

That suffices for postiive doubt.

Anonymous Troll can take you crap somewhere else.  You're free to decide that the Novus Ordo Presbyters are all valid and go to as many of their Masses as you like.

But your buffoonery has not authority to impose your (idiotic self-serving) conclusions on anyone else ... so you can stand up here opining until you're blue in the face.

Now, this thread is for people who with to report SSPX Fake Priests, not for your stupidity.  Take it somewhere else if you want to start a thread attempting to prove the validity of Bogus Ordo Orders.  Of course, you can't ... since the burden of proof is on you to prove validity, and you can't do it, since you lack the authority to do so.

AGAIN ... this thread isn't for the pro-neo-SSPX trolls who have decided that Novus Ordo Presbyters are valid priests.  You're free to do as you like and go receive as many cookies as you wish for "Communion".  It's entirely up to you.

Instead, this thread is for the rest of us who simply and objectively look at the evidence and have come to the conclusion that there's clearly something there.  Yeah, those enemies who infiltrated the Church and decided to wreck as much as they can, sure, let's TRUST them now to not have vitiated the Sacraments.  That's all the "postive" that is required.  In addition, I would conclude there's objective positive doubt even if I myself became convinced that they were valid.  Why?  Simply because many intelligent, educated, orthodox Catholics have arrived at that conclusion in good faith.

So, the SSPX continue to gaslight by dishonestly leveraging the notion of how the RE-administration of a "character" Sacrament constitutes the mortal sin of sacrilege.  Uhm, that's precisely why the CONDITIONAL form was invented, to prevent that possibility.  If the man is already a priest, then no ordination takes place, per that form.  But SSPX conflate this notion of sacrilege to dishonestly apply it to when a CONDITIONAL can be performed.

Now, it would certainly be a grave disrespect to the Sacrament is someone performed them conditionally for no reason whatsoever, giving them to anyone with a pulse, based on a "what if" ... as someone who is scrupulous or neurotic would do.  But one may employ the CONDITIONAL form of the Sacrament based on any reasonable circuмstance, such as when a bunch of Modernists have wreaked havoc everywhere, replacing the Catholic Mass with something more akin to a Prot service, and in such circuмstances, to ease the consciences of the faithful when there are in fact many bishops, priests, and others who have concluded that there is positive doubt.

Imagine a lay Catholic who doesn't have much training in theology, and he hears a Bishop Sanborn or Father Jenkins or any other highly-intelligent and orthodox priest make a solid case for positive doubt.  Now this layman is ordered by SSPX to accept their judgment ... and reject that of these other Bishops.  Robinson, in his video, declares that the faithful should trust the SSPX priests and bishops.  So, what are these other bishops and priests ... chopped liver?

But so a layman hears this controversy and perhaps can't sleep at night wondering if his family are not possibly getting invalid Sacraments from the Novus Ordo Presbyter who keeps showing up at their chapel.

So the SSPX torments their consciences ... and for what?

Oh, I'll tell you why ... and EVERYBODY KNOWS IT.  These guys DID NOT come to this conclusion objectively or based on any solid theological reasoning, but simply because they NEED TO SAY THIS SO THEY CAN KEEP PLAYING FOOTSIE WITH MODERNIST ROME.

1000% that's the ONLY reasons they impose this crap on the faithful, since any suggestion to the contrary would scuttle any dreams they have of getting regularizied.

There's absolutely no justification for refusing to perform conditional ordinations.  None whatsover ... except to appease the Modernists.  Period.  And, sadly, it's precisely what Archbishop Lefebvre did too in the early 1980s, throwing the US priests under the bus, sacrificing them on the altar of the Modernists, forcing them to accept Mr. Stark or else leave SSPX ... because that was during his conciliatory phase where he was begging Rome to allow him to make the "experiment of Tradition".

Also, at some point, the SSPX, decades ago, introduced this bogus "sleight of hand", where they pretend that the ONLY reason that the NO Orders MIGHT even possibly be invalid would be due to a defect of intention.

Bzzzzzzzt.

That is COMPLETELY the OPPOSITE of Catholic teaching, of what Pope Leo XIII taught in Apostolicase Curae.  Pope Leo XIII explicitly teaches that the intention belongs in the internal forum, which not even the Church can judge ... but somehow the SSPX must have some committe of "soul-readers", like Padre Pios, who can discern the internal forum through some magical "investigation" methods.  Idiotic.

Now, Pope Leo XIII taught clearly that the intention under scrutiny was the intention of the RITE, not of the minister.  If the Rite is valid, as Robinson claims, then the correct intention is PRESUMED by the Church.  There's no "investigation" necessary.  Sadly, even the Resistance have maintained this charade regarding intention, and that's so they can have their cake and eat it too, so they can come up with a justification for why they might do condtionals sometimes but not at other times.

Pope Leo XIII CLEARLY teaches that EVEN IF the essential form is correct, the Sacrament would be invalid anyway if the intention of the Rite is defective.  On what did Pope Leo base his discernment of the intention of the Rite ... on what was clearly a methodical attempt to remove as much as possible that was Catholic from the Rite.  In other words, on EXACTLY what we Trads have as our talking points about what the Modernist were doing, removing all the quintessential Catholics elements from the Rite, trying to make it resemble the services of the heretics.

I urge everyone to actually read Apostolicae Curae, one of the only Magisterial treatments regarding the various aspects of validity and invalidity in the Sacramental Rites..

Oh, I'll tell you why ... and EVERYBODY KNOWS IT.  These guys DID NOT come to this conclusion objectively or based on any solid theological reasoning, but simply because they NEED TO SAY THIS SO THEY CAN KEEP PLAYING FOOTSIE WITH MODERNIST ROME.

This is so obvious, and yet so easily forgotten. In other words, they are dishonest, and are absolutely not to be trusted.

Once you start imposing doubtful sacraments on the faithful, you have really no reason to be there, since the main reason for priests to exist is to provide the sacraments.

Thanks for taking on this project, Lad.

And to add to what was I said above, the principle as I learned it is:  If the traditional formula is used, then we presume the intention.  But, if the modernist formula is used, we must presume an ill intention, or at least a modernist intention.  And nothing seems to be said of the orthodoxy of these NO bishops.  Take for instance Cardinal Bernardin, he was a valid bishop.  But what guy in his right mind would go to Bernardin for ordination?  The guy was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, borderline Luciferian; at least an outright modernist liberal. Even if Bernardin used the orthodox formula, one would be insane to go to him for ordination.  

'Positive doubt' is a canonical term applied after a Rite or the administration of a sacrament has been found, by the correct authorities and in accordance to specific guidelines , to be lacking in some essential element to render it possibly invalid.

.

Which canon are you referring to?

There is also positive doubt when incorrect words are used for the form. Pius XII defined what words are the form of Holy Orders. The new rite does not use those words.

This has all been decided by the Church already. We are not just expressing our own opinions when we say the new rite is doubtful.