I think discussing what the Nine did to +ABL is starting an argument in the middle.
Not that anybody really cares, but I think that most of us can agree that the NO changed things it shouldn't have changed. We needed new Bishops to continue the church because the Consecration Form was changed in 1968. Doubt of the bread being turned into the "Body of Christ" began to happen. We no longer believe that Jesus is at NO altars. If we ever get a Pope again, who is Catholic, he is going to have to remedy this first. Because we believe Jesus is not at the NO altars, then we believe that we have to have "Emergency" priests who can continue Christ's Church. Aren't these priests and bishops limited to what they can do because they do not have jurisdiction? Doesn't this need to be discussed first. +ABL picked one path +Thuc picked another. They both saw the need for an "Emergency". I guess we just need to pray really hard for a Catholic Pope to remedy this first problem, before the rest can be figured out (what missal to use?, +ABL vs +Thuc, UNa cuм vs non-una cuм). Do people really think that the people who accept the +Thuc lines bishops are not Catholic?
Maybe I am wrong, but I wanted to see how a discussion would go on this topic. If there was one years ago, I am sorry for starting it again.