Even Stine agrees that it's Fake News and utter nonsense --

Interestingly, +Zendejas recently told me that in some places, the bishops continued to use the old priestly Ordinal several years after the 1968 rite was promulgated (one of whom was the bishop of Galveston, TX).  I wonder if some also continued to use the old rite of consecration?

It would have been nice to have a lsit of these, with timelines, but as they were doing it under the radar...

That's not impossible.  I've heard that some bishops, especially the older ones, retained the Traditional Rites of Consecration and Ordination in particular because it's what they were familiar with and didn't want to bother relearning the new stuff.

I saw a video of +Gracida offering the Tridentine Mass for some anniversary within the past year, and he appeared to be in great shape for his age.  He had to sit down for much of the Mass, but he's 99 years old.

EDIT:  here's the video

these creatures like Salza only seem to slither out of the sewer of the VII sect to castigate Trads, which
is very telling since the men he claims are popes have been telling us that everyone(except Hitler)
goes to Heaven.
If you can be an atheist, joo, sodomite, muslim, buddhist, Biden, etc. and still merit Heaven, why then
are Trads such a thorn in their sides? Why not let them do their thing?

It's because they hate the truth. They can't stand the idea that this tiny tiny group of Catholics
doesn't accept their false church.

This.

It angers me to see someone so boldly peddle lies on a screen, and to play the game of "caring" about the poor "lost souls" of those who attend SSPX or sede masses. Not just Salza, but all of these Novus Ordo grifters. And it is a game, a superficial act that resembles the methods of the Protestant televangelist. Let me briefly demonstrate how self-defeating it is for one to uphold the Novus Ordo position and clutch one's pears at the thought of souls being lost because of "schismatic RadTrads":

To give just one of example of how Francis (along with the rest of the Newchurch) views actual schismatics, let's take a look what he said in a 2016 speech given in the nation of Georgia:

But what should I do with a friend, neighbour, an Orthodox person? Be open, be a friend. 'But should I make efforts to convert him or her?' There is a very grave sin against ecuмenism: proselytism. We should never proselytise the Orthodox! They are our brothers and sisters, disciples of Jesus Christ.

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2016/10/01/161001b.html

So, he not only equates proselytism and evangelization as being the same (which completely refutes the attempts by grifters like Michael Lofton and Trent Horn to exonerate his statements against proselytism), but says that it is a "grave sin" to act in this manner towards the schismatics!

Therefore, if Salza holds that Francis is without error, then he must admit that it is a "grave sin against ecuмenism" for him to attempt to convert the Orthodox. If the SSPX and sedevacantist groups are "schismatic" according to him, then the same logic applies.

Obviously this is not the only point in which his position can be used against him, as there is an incredible variety of quotes and statements one could use to point out the sheer absurdity of these railers against Tradition.

What drives their attacks is not a concern for souls, but rather as Bernardo put it, a hatred of this tiny remnant that doesn't accept their false Church.

Bishop Gracida (cited by Ladislaus):

"I WAS ORDAINED A BISHOP USING A PRE-VATICAN II RITE OF ORDINATION
In 1967 I was transferred from my assignment as Pastor of Saint Ann Parish, Naples, Florida to a new assignment as Pastor of The Church of the Nativity in Hollywood, Florida.

In 1968 I was transferred from my assignment as Pastor the Church of the Nativity in Hollywood to my assignment as Rector of Saint Mary Cathedral in Miami, Florida while retaining my previous assignments as Chairman of the Archdiocesan Liturgy Commission and Chairman of the Archdiocesan Building Commission.

In 1969 Archbishop Carroll appointed me Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Miami, while retaining all of my other assignments.

In 1969 The Concillium of the Second Vatican Council published a new edition of the Pontificale Romanum. Since I was both the Chairman of the Archdiocesan Liturgy Commission and Rector of the Archdiocesan Cathedral where ordinations took place, I asked Archbishop Carroll if I should order a copy of the new Pontifical Romanum for use in the Cathedral. The Archbishop replied that since there was some controversy about Monsignor Anibale Bugnini, editor of the new Pontificale Romanum, in whom he did not have much confidence we would continue to use the old Pontificale Romanum already in use in Saint Mary Cathedral for ordinations until a consensus developed in the Church that the new Pontificale was free from error. Consequently, when I was appointed in December of 1971 Auxiliary Bishop to Archbishop Coleman Carroll by Pope Paul VI, I was still Rector of Saint Mary Cathedral. I therefore know for a certainty that I was ordained Auxiliary Bishop of Miami on January 25, 1972 with an earlier edition of the Pontificale Romanum that was still in use in the Cathedral of Saint Mary in Miami and not the 1969 Edition of the Bugnini Pontificale."


Comment:

There's the proof that some bishops continued to use the old rite of episcopal consecration and priestly ordination for years after the promulgation of the new rites.

The comment is interesting for another reason: It would appear implicit that neither Cardinal Deardon, Archbishop Carroll, nor Bishop Tanner (i.e., the consecrator and co-consecrators of Bishop Gracida) considered the new sacramental rites covered by indefectability or infallibility of the Church, if they could refuse to use them on the grounds that they might contain errors, and therefore be harmful/invalid.

Bishop Gracida (cited by Ladislaus):

"I WAS ORDAINED A BISHOP USING A PRE-VATICAN II RITE OF ORDINATION
In 1967 I was transferred from my assignment as Pastor of Saint Ann Parish, Naples, Florida to a new assignment as Pastor of The Church of the Nativity in Hollywood, Florida.

In 1968 I was transferred from my assignment as Pastor the Church of the Nativity in Hollywood to my assignment as Rector of Saint Mary Cathedral in Miami, Florida while retaining my previous assignments as Chairman of the Archdiocesan Liturgy Commission and Chairman of the Archdiocesan Building Commission.

In 1969 Archbishop Carroll appointed me Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Miami, while retaining all of my other assignments.

In 1969 The Concillium of the Second Vatican Council published a new edition of the Pontificale Romanum. Since I was both the Chairman of the Archdiocesan Liturgy Commission and Rector of the Archdiocesan Cathedral where ordinations took place, I asked Archbishop Carroll if I should order a copy of the new Pontifical Romanum for use in the Cathedral. The Archbishop replied that since there was some controversy about Monsignor Anibale Bugnini, editor of the new Pontificale Romanum, in whom he did not have much confidence we would continue to use the old Pontificale Romanum already in use in Saint Mary Cathedral for ordinations until a consensus developed in the Church that the new Pontificale was free from error. Consequently, when I was appointed in December of 1971 Auxiliary Bishop to Archbishop Coleman Carroll by Pope Paul VI, I was still Rector of Saint Mary Cathedral. I therefore know for a certainty that I was ordained Auxiliary Bishop of Miami on January 25, 1972 with an earlier edition of the Pontificale Romanum that was still in use in the Cathedral of Saint Mary in Miami and not the 1969 Edition of the Bugnini Pontificale."


Comment:

There's the proof that some bishops continued to use the old rite of episcopal consecration and priestly ordination for years after the promulgation of the new rites.

The comment is interesting for another reason: It would appear implicit that neither Cardinal Deardon, Archbishop Carroll, nor Bishop Tanner (i.e., the consecrator and co-consecrators of Bishop Gracida) considered the new sacramental rites covered by indefectability or infallibility of the Church, if they could refuse to use them on the grounds that they might contain errors, and therefore be harmful/invalid.

If you do enough digging you can find pictures of the consecration rite and it appears to be a mistake on +Gracida's part. The photos show the gospel book being placed above +Gracida's head and a quote from the new rite as a caption for the bestowal of the ring upon +Gracida.

I found this link, but haven't had a chance to look carefully yet...


https://drive.google.com/file/d/1toirCcdL2qNtOH4tDwTCUlODX5tqZFq1/view

Still working through it, but on p.3, he says:

"Bishop Gracida spoke at the conclusion of the ceremonies.
More than all the beauty and the pomp and
circuмstance which surrounds this ancient and sacred rite of
the Catholic Church,..."

Is he referring to the ancient rite itself, or just to the ancient practice of consecrating bishops?

Here's a columned side x side comparison of the form of the rites:


https://sspx.org/en/table-2-validity-new-episcopal-consecrations 

Here it is --

It still blows my mind that they think Ratzinger was on the side of tradition. Are they completely unaware of his writings and statements before his election? He espoused ridiculous heresies not unlike Bergoglio, but he was more elegant in how he expressed them. Or are they deliberately overlooking Ratzinger's modernist views because he allowed them to have their liturgical preference at their diocesan churches? Either way, it's really frustrating.

That would explain why the Masons haven't killed him yet for exposing Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.

That's been my question. They just let him off scot-free with their deepest secrets? No way. He's disseminating it, wittingly or unwittingly, to promote interest in Masonry.