This is why the classic SSPX attitude towards the Conciliar Church is more sane and comprehensive than the simplistic attitude of some (mostly sedevacantist) groups:
"NOT CATHOLIC! Equivalent to Lutheran!"
Could you all
please stop picking up every stick you find in the road to beat sedevacantists with? There's simply no need to bring up sedevacantists in a topic that has nothing to do with sedevacantists.
I agree that the classic SSPX
attitude towards Conciliar ordinations is the proper attitude. The Neo-SSPX, on the other hand, is completely wrong in that they now seem to think that ordinations are valid if the ordinand himself believes
it was valid.
But let's get back to the "simplistic attitude of sedevacantists". Every sedevacantist I've ever heard or read clearly condemns the new rite
of ordination, not the traditional rite. All of them say that a priest ordained in the traditional rite by a bishop who was consecrated in the traditional rite and whose lineage is untouched by the Novus Ordo are valid priests. I've never heard any sedevacantist (of consequence--obviously the Dimond brothers aren't of consequence since they think they're the only Catholics left on earth) suggest that the date of an ordination itself ipso facto means invalid.
In fact, most sedevacantists I've heard don't even declare Novus Ordo ordinations certainly invalid. Most say that the ordinations are probably doubtful; it is the Novus Ordo consecrations that are invalid
. Thus, a true bishop who ordains in the traditional rite makes certainly valid priests.
It is the Novus Ordo that is a non-Catholic rite, not the traditional rite; and, quite frankly, I don't believe you know any sedevacantists who actually have the "simplistic attitude" that priests ordained by a certainly valid bishop in a certainly valid Catholic rite are not valid priests.