Here's "je ne regrette rien" Fr.Cekada "we resisted +ABL to his face" http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NineVLefebvre.pdf

One of the main issues for them was their claim that +ABL already allowed Priests in the new rite to work with the Society. Fr. Cekada: "I then tried to pin the archbishop down on the issue of conditional ordination for priests ordained in the new rite. He began by trying to placate us, saying he was fundamentally in agreement, the situation was lamentable, it would be “better” if Fr. Stark would be re-ordained, etc. But when I pressed him to give a clear answer, the archbishop said he would not make this a policy." Why should sedes be allowed to enforce their heterodox theology on +ABL and the Society? +ABL, if anything, was far too gracious with them. In 1982, +ABL arrived at the conclusion that the new rite, based on the connection to Eastern rites, was almost certainly valid, as even Cekada admitted. +ABL mainly pointed to defect of intention that can arise at times. Neither Fr. Gregory Hesse nor Bp. Salvador Lazo was ordained or consecrated again, showing the Society did not deem the new rite to always be per se invalid.

Father Cekada says, on his website, "By 1982, however, once [Archbishop] Lefebvre undertaken another of his periodic bouts of negotiation with the Vatican, he changed his position, apparently under the impression that Paul VI form was used in the Eastern Rites, and therefore unquestionably valid." It remains to show +ABL's "impression" was right.

let's look at the consecratory prayer in the new rite in full: "Prayer of Consecration
26.  Next the principal consecrator, with his hands extended over the bishop-elect, sings the prayer of consecration or says it aloud:

God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Father of mercies and God of all consolation, you dwell in heaven, yet look with compassion on all that is humble.  You know all things before they came to be; by your gracious word you have established the plan of your Church.

From the beginning you chose the descendants of Abraham to be your holy nation.  You established rulers and priests, and did not leave your sanctuary without ministers to serve you.  From the creation of the world you have been pleased to be glorified by those whom you have chosen.

   The following part of the prayer is recited by all the consecrating bishops, with hands joined:

So now pour out upon this chosen one the power that is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to his holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.

   Then the principal consecrator continues alone.

Father, you know all hearts.  You have chosen your servant for the office of bishop.  May he be a shepherd to your holy flock, and a high priest blameless in your sight, ministering to you night and day; may he always gain the blessing of your favor and offer the gifts of your holy Church.  Through the Spirit who gives the grace of high priesthood grant him the power to forgive sins as you have commanded, to assign ministries as you have decreed, and to loose every bond by the authority which you gave to your apostles.  May he be pleasing to you by his gentleness and purity of heart, presenting a fragrant offering to you, through Jesus Christ, your Son, through whom glory and power and honor are yours with the Holy Spirit in your holy Church, now and for ever.  R.  Amen."

Consider two things, even leaving aside that Principal or Governing Spirit is almost certainly in itself a reference to the Episcopacy here, (1) first, the prayer of consecration asks for the Spirit given to Our Lord Jesus Christ, and it is beyond any doubt that Our Lord Jesus was a High Priest; (2) second, it says this is the same Spirit given to the Apostles, and likewise it is de fide that the Apostles were not merely simple Priests, but high Priests [Tradition often calls the bishop, "summus sacerdos"] or Bishops. See for e.g. in the CE, "Tertullian (On Baptism 17) calls the bishop the "summus sacerdos", under whom are the "presbyteri et diaconi"; and Cyprian (Ep. lxi, 3) speaks of the "presbyteri cuм episcopo sacerdotali honore conjuncti", i.e. the priests united by sacerdotal dignity with the bishop (see BISHOP)." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12409a.htm

Finally, the SSPX Study: "Let us note in passing that these two rites [the Coptic and West Syrian] are perfectly Catholic ... To assure ourselves of the validity of Pope Paul VI’s rite, it will suffice for us to place side by side the new consecratory prayer and the two Eastern rites in question. The validity of these two rites can in no wise be called into question, otherwise the Coptic Church (Catholic as well as Orthodox) and the Syrian Church (which includes the Maronites) would have neither bishops nor priests, nor would they ever have had them. We have prepared a four-column comparison (refer Table 3: Four-column comparison of 1968 edition with Hippolytus text, Coptic and Maronite Rites) with, in order from left to right, Pope Paul VI’s new consecratory prayer,[77] the Latin version of the Apostolic Tradition [i.e., “of Hippolytus”—Ed.],[78] the Coptic rite, and the Syrian rite. For the latter two texts we have used the Denzinger translation.[79] With the four prayers transcribed into the same language, the comparison is made easy." From: https://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations-4

Therefore, to say that the new rite is invalid, is to say that Jesus Christ was not a High Priest; to say it is "perhaps" invalid, is to say that the Apostles were "perhaps" not Bishops, but merely simple Priests. To say the Eastern rites used long ago were invalid, is to say Eastern Churches in communion with Rome a long time ago defected even then; to say that the Roman Church, for 50 years, has used invalid rites of episcopal consecration, such that no remaining residential bishops in the local arch-diocese of Rome are valid Bishops, which would mean the local Church of Rome as a particular Church is not Apostolic any longer, is to say the Church defected.

XavierSem is just a kid that "discovered" the Latin Mass and loves it's beauty, and he believes whatever "tradition" is OK with the Vatican II church, that's about it. If one wants to know about the new ordination rite and the new formula for consecrating bishops, see the thread: 

Advice for Novus Ordo Priests in SSPX Chapels https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/advice-for-novus-ordo-priests-in-sspx-chapels/

Here's some snippets:
 

"Innocent XI condemned the position that it is permissible in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned.... Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders. (Proposition 1 condemned and prohibited by Innocent XI, Dz. 1151)
 
 Consequently, it is forbidden to accept a likely or probably valid ordination for the subsequent conferring of sacraments. One must have the greatest possible moral certitude, as in other things necessary for eternal salvation. The faithful themselves understand this principle, and it really is a part of the “sensus Ecclesiae,” the spirit of the Church. They do not want to share modernist, liberal rites, and have an aversion to receiving the sacraments from priests ordained in such rites, for they cannot tolerate a doubt in such matters."
 
 NOTE: This "aversion" seems absent today in the SSPX, given the presence of Bishop Huonder in an SSPX school, African District officials loading their chapels with ICK priests, and directing their faithful to a diocesan bi-ritual priest, etc.

 

[font=&quot,serif]Since there have been changes to the Rites by the Novus Ordo, and since the Novus Ordo cannot be trusted (given all the other error and mischief they have perpetrated), that alone rises to the standard of creating sufficient doubt for conditional ordination.  Negative doubt is like "What if the priest forgot to say a word when I was baptized?"  No reason to believe this other than a nervous "what if".  But with the NO Rite of Ordination, "Modernists are running the show, and they changed the essential form of the Rite.  Some people have argued that these changes cause issues."  THAT IS ALL YOU NEED.  That is positive doubt, something concrete you can point to. ….I believe there's positive doubt with regard to the Rite itself, and , and a lot of reasonable/intelligent/well-educated people have concluded that there is.  [/font][/color]

 

From Sean Johnson:

At the non-theological level:
 
 I avoid priests ordained in the new rite of priestly ordination (and even more so, those ordained according to the traditional rite by bishops consecrated in the new rite of episcopal consecration).
 
 Don’t want anything to do with them, whether they are in SSPX chapels or elsewhere.
 
 It’s like buying a bottle of milk at the store, and you discover the tamper-resistant seal is broken: Maybe the milk is ok, or maybe it has been tampered with in a way that makes it harmful to drink.
 
 Why take the risk?  I’ll grab another bottle where I don’t have to worry.
 
 I’m just not drinking that dicey milk.
 
 What’s the point of modifying a certainly valid sacramental formula, except to make it less certainly valid?  If you move away from “certainly valid” formulae, all that is left are “less certainly valid” formulae.

 
[font=&quot,serif] [/font][/color]
 

Let me put it this way, if every single Novus ordo priest is validly ordained it has no effect on those people that had doubts and would not go to mass with them. If however, the Novus Ordo priests was not a valid priest, then it would have an effect on those that went to mass with him, and again no effect on those that didn't. In other words, whether the milk container with the broken safety seal was poisoned or not, it had no effect on Sean Johnson because he didn't drink it. The poisoned milk only affected those that drank it.

 

Fr. Calderon (SSPX): SiSiNoNo No. 267 in November of 2014 and may be found online here.


"If we consider the matter, form and intention of the new rite of episcopal consecration in the context of the rite and in the circuмstances of its institution, it seems to us that it is most probably valid, because it not only means what it should mean, but that most of its elements are taken from rites received by the Church (32).

But we also believe that there is no certainty of its validity (the italicized Spanish words are no hay certezade su validez), because it suffers from two major defects, which we could classify as one [canonical] and the other theological.

- Canonical defect. For this reason: above, the institution of this new rite cannot be considered legitimate.

- Theological defect. The novus ordo is not the same but only similar to other rites accepted by the Church. Although certainly these rites, on the one hand, are not very precise in their concepts; and on the other hand, the differences introduced by the novus ordo follow tendencies of bad doctrine. All this makes theological judgment, always difficult in these matters, even more difficult.

Now, in a matter of the utmost importance for the life of the Church, as is the validity of the episcopate, it becomes necessary to have absolute certainty. Therefore, to be able to accept this rite with peace of conscience, it would be necessary not to have only the sentence of theologians, but the sentence of the infallible Magisterium.

As for the practical attitude to sustain in the face of the new episcopal consecrations, it seems to us that the one that had supported the Fraternity until now is justified:

1. The very probable validity of the rite seems to us to make it morally acceptable to occasionally attend Mass (traditional rite) celebrated by an ordained priest or bishop the Church is not to be consecrated in the new rite, or even to receive communion in it; it seems to us acceptable, in case of necessity, to receive the acquittal from them; treat them as priests and bishops and not as lay people in disguise; we find it acceptable to allow them to celebrate in our own houses. For the shadows that float over the validity of his priesthood are but shadows, and in all those activities our responsibility for the priesthood exercised is not compromised. And the remote risk of a communion or an absolution being invalidated is not so serious.

2. But the positive and objective defects that this rite suffers, which prevent one from being certain of its validity, it seems to us that - until there is a Roman sentence, for which they would have to change many things - justify and make necessary the conditional reordination of priests consecrated by new bishops and, if necessary, the conditional re-consecration of these bishops. Such uncertainties cannot be suffered at the very root of the sacraments (33).

- Father Alvaro Calderón

1. The very probable validity of the rite seems to us to make it morally acceptable to occasionally attend Mass (traditional rite) celebrated by an ordained priest or bishop the Church is not to be consecrated in the new rite, or even to receive communion in it; it seems to us acceptable, in case of necessity, to receive the acquittal from them; treat them as priests and bishops and not as lay people in disguise; we find it acceptable to allow them to celebrate in our own houses. For the shadows that float over the validity of his priesthood are but shadows, and in all those activities our responsibility for the priesthood exercised is not compromised. And the remote risk of a communion or an absolution being invalidated is not so serious.

2. But the positive and objective defects that this rite suffers, which prevent one from being certain of its validity, it seems to us that - until there is a Roman sentence, for which they would have to change many things - justify and make necessary the conditional reordination of priests consecrated by new bishops and, if necessary, the conditional re-consecration of these bishops. Such uncertainties cannot be suffered at the very root of the sacraments (33).

- Father Alvaro Calderón

And ... he admits here the positive doubt regarding the validity of the Rite itself.  There is in fact clearly positive doubt.

Yet #1 does not seem entirely correct ... except for the part where it's permitted "in case of necessity."  I agree that it's OK to give them respect, e.g. call them "Father", and even to attend a Mass, but the Catholic teaching has been the "tutiorist" approach, as cited by Last Trad above, which states that only in necessity can one receive the Sacraments from a priest of doubtful validity.

He seems to be waffling between trying to characterize the doubt as positive ("the positive and objective defects that the rite suffers, which prevent one from being certain of its validity") and negative "mere ... shadows that float over the validity".  So he's kindof wanting to have his cake and eat it too.  Either the doubt is positive doubt or it is not.

Xavier sem, the argument of the NREC (New Rite of Episcopal Consecration) being an older Eastern rite  has been defeated on this site before. The fact of the matter is that the form of the Easter rites is over 200 words and the new form is in the 50s or 60s. Lad was the one who made the post that I read. 

For Xavier to be making these statements as if it is some unified, blanket stance of SSPX priests (or bishops for that matter) is ludicrous. It is most certainly not.

Xavier presents his own position as that of the SSPX, due to wishful thinking.