CathInfo.com

'Fr' Stark refused the offer of conditional ordination by +ABL.  AFAIK no cleric who asked for conditional ordination was ever refused by +ABL. 

This is quite a fair article on the history of +ABL's practical position.

Also, +Lefebvre's position isn't that of God either, as it's well known that he vacillated somewhat, especially on issues like this.

In addition, the Mr. Stark episode took place during at time when +Lefebvre had swung to the left, was trying to reach a +Fellay-ite practical agreement with Rome, begging them to let him make the "experiment of Tradition" within the Conciliar pantheon.  He went left on quite a few issues in the early 1980s.  But then by 1985 or so, he swung back to the other direction.

After about the mid-1980s until several years into the +Fellay era, I have not heard of a single priest who was allowed to work with SSPX who had not received conditional ordination.  There were a couple suspects, but then when someone did a bit of digging, aka asked Bishop Williamson, in every case I know of +Williamson affirmed that a conditional had been performed.  I don't know of any cases where the presider REFUSED it either, but then much of that happened behind closed doors we'll never know, and we can't prove a negative.  HAD some priest refused in, say, the late 1980s through about the year 2000, I'm certain that the SSPX would have just said, thanks but no thanks, and go find somewhere else to exercise your ministry ... if for no other reason than they didn't want to deal with backlash from the faithful.

Bishop Williamson, for instance, felt the NO Rites were valid, but he nevertheless believed the faithful could not-unreasonably come to a different conclusion and that the had a right to be at peace about the validity of the Sacraments.  In other words, he did not have the hubris to impose his conclusion on the consciences of others like neo-SSPX are doing todya.

^^^ Me.

Also, +Lefebvre's position isn't that of God either, as it's well known that he vacillated somewhat, especially on issues like this.

In addition, the Mr. Stark episode took place during at time when +Lefebvre had swung to the left, was trying to reach a +Fellay-ite practical agreement with Rome, begging them to let him make the "experiment of Tradition" within the Conciliar pantheon.  He went left on quite a few issues in the early 1980s.  But then by 1985 or so, he swung back to the other direction.

After about the mid-1980s until several years into the +Fellay era, I have not heard of a single priest who was allowed to work with SSPX who had not received conditional ordination.  There were a couple suspects, but then when someone did a bit of digging, aka asked Bishop Williamson, in every case I know of +Williamson affirmed that a conditional had been performed.  I don't know of any cases where the presider REFUSED it either, but then much of that happened behind closed doors we'll never know, and we can't prove a negative.  HAD some priest refused in, say, the late 1980s through about the year 2000, I'm certain that the SSPX would have just said, thanks but no thanks, and go find somewhere else to exercise your ministry ... if for no other reason than they didn't want to deal with backlash from the faithful.

Bishop Williamson, for instance, felt the NO Rites were valid, but he nevertheless believed the faithful could not-unreasonably come to a different conclusion and that the had a right to be at peace about the validity of the Sacraments.  In other words, he did not have the hubris to impose his conclusion on the consciences of others like neo-SSPX are doing todya.

Was there not a case of two brothers, both ordained in the new rite, who joined the SSPX sometime in the 1980s?  Both were offered conditional ordination by  +ABL one accepted and the other refused.