indiscriminately re/conditionally ordain every and any NO priest that come to them based on them being ordained NO

Being ordained in the NO is not an "indiscriminate" reason.  Shame on you.

What is worth it, is spending what, a whole 10 - 20 minutes if that, looking into the individual's NO ordination to prove doubt/invalidity - and then go ahead with it.

10-20 minutes of "investigation" is all you deem necessary?  What, pray tell, would be the questions asked?  What kind of investigation lasts only 20 minutes?

Q. Who ordained you and when?
A. +Vigano 3 years ago
Didn't even take one minute.

So...because +Vigano is a non-bishop, having been consecrated in the new rite, then this ordination is doubtfully valid, right?

Next one....
Q. Who ordained you and when
A. +Yahoo Heretic 20 years ago
Now the trad bishop needs to spend a few ( maybe 10 - 20) minutes to find out what he needs to know about that bishop. Sometimes the trad bishop, who has been through this plenty of times already, may already know what he needs to know and does not even need to spend another minute investigating.

A heretic bishop could still validly ordain.  That's the part you're missing.  The rite used is WAY more important than the bishop.  A heretic bishop, using the old rite, can validly ordain/consecrate.  That's why the +ABL slanders about his consecrating bishop, +Leinart, being a freemason, don't matter. 

Conversely, in the case above, no matter how orthodox the new-rite bishop is, no matter if he ordains using the True Rite, since his bishop-ness is in doubt, he cannot ordain (or, to put it better, canon law tells us we treat as invalid).

Because the Church always initially presumes validity,

You keep repeating this falsity.  The Church only presumes validity for a) approved rites, b) which are properly performed, and c) having no positive doubts in their circuмstances.

A.  The new rites of V2 are not "approved rites".  Paul VI did not use his apostolic authority to create them.  They are man-made, not from the Holy Ghost.
B.  The only way to know if they were properly performed/ have proper intent, would be to be visibly present.  No way anyone can know this.
C.  Positive Doubts exist due to the very text of the rites themselves.  They have the same flaws as the Anglican rites which were already condemned.

So, no, Trads do not presume validity.

What Stubborn is surely referring to is the fact that with the ordination rite, Archbishop Lefebvre very clearly taught that the new rite did contain the essential form necessary for validity.

+ABL was right, for the period of the 70s/80s, when there were valid bishops in new-rome.  But that’s all gone now.  That view is outdated.  They’re all dead.  

The new rite of consecration is NOT essentially the same, and highly doubtful.  Thus, new rite “bishops” (99.99999% of bishops in the world) are most likely fake and their ordinations (whether with the old or new rite) are highly suspect. 

So...because +Vigano is a non-bishop, having been consecrated in the new rite, then this ordination is doubtfully valid, right?

To me, yes, it is doubtfully valid, because I don't trust the NO to do anything right, but I cannot prove it valid/invalid or doubtful one way or the other. There are those who can, but I am not one of them and neither are you.

A heretic bishop could still validly ordain.  That's the part you're missing.  The rite used is WAY more important than the bishop.  A heretic bishop, using the old rite, can validly ordain/consecrate.  That's why the +ABL slanders about his consecrating bishop, +Leinart, being a freemason, don't matter. 

Conversely, in the case above, no matter how orthodox the new-rite bishop is, no matter if he ordains using the True Rite, since his bishop-ness is in doubt, he cannot ordain (or, to put it better, canon law tells us we treat as invalid).

No, I am not missing that part. Per Fr. Hesse, +ABL, +Williamson and I think Fr. Schmidberger all said that an and old rite bishop who ordained priests in the new rite, and a new rite bishop who ordained priests in the old rite, were both validly ordained priests. According to your thinking, both are invalid ordinations. 


You keep repeating this falsity.
The Church only presumes validity for a) approved rites, b) which are properly performed, and c) having no positive doubts in their circuмstances.
A.  The new rites of V2 are not "approved rites".  Paul VI did not use his apostolic authority to create them.  They are man-made, not from the Holy Ghost.
B.  The only way to know if they were properly performed/ have proper intent, would be to be visibly present.  No way anyone can know this.
C.  Positive Doubts exist due to the very text of the rites themselves.  They have the same flaws as the Anglican rites which were already condemned.

So, no, Trads do not presume validity.

Very simply Pax, you refuse to accept the Church, as the sole owner of all of the sacraments, always has and always must presume validity initially. Until such a time that a pope comes out as Pope Leo XIII did regarding the Anglicans, validity is presumed - or what reason did pope Leo XIII even bother?

This is easily exemplified using any of the sacraments, but let's take the sacrament of baptism for example. A prot who was baptized as a young child and has no knowledge of whether or not it was done correctly wants to become a Catholic and wants to be baptized in the Catholic Church.

 The priest may not simply re/conditionally baptize as if the other baptism was automatically invalid or doubtful, under pain of sacrilege he must first prove invalidity or doubt - because validity is always presumed initially. This is not the least bit complicated Pax, and the same goes for all of the sacraments, including NO ordinations/consecrations. The ordaining bishop has got to be sure he is not repeating a sacrament that the Church forbids under pain of mortal sin from being repeated.
 

"+ABL, +Williamson and I think Fr. Schmidberger all said that an and old rite bishop who ordained priests in the new rite, and a new rite bishop who ordained priests in the old rite, were both validly ordained priests."

What is this Stubborn? I challenge you to docuмent this.

First, there's this, a phone call I made to someone at SSPX about this issue.

Although the video has been removed, I have posted about this in the past:

@ 1:04 "...I have been ordained, unfortunately in the new rite of ordination, but thank God in Latin, everything strictly by the book and +ABL said that would be valid, +Fellay said it's valid and Fr. Franz Schmidberger who is my present superior in Austria says it's valid and +Williamson said there's no need for conditional ordination...." - Fr. Hesse

https://youtu.be/lfJZv44xFHQ?t=62

I will post the whole quote if I find the recording of him saying what I quoted him as saying. He's got quite a few recordings out there and it's on one of them, not sure which one tho.

No, I am not missing that part. Per Fr. Hesse, +ABL, +Williamson and I think Fr. Schmidberger all said that an and old rite bishop who ordained priests in the new rite,

This could be valid.  The new rite of ordination is not as problematic as the new rite of consecration.  A fact that many in the new-sspx don't distinguish.

and a new rite bishop who ordained priests in the old rite, were both validly ordained priests.

This is very probably invalid.  The new rite of consecration is the problem.

Very simply Pax, you refuse to accept the Church, as the sole owner of all of the sacraments, always has and always must presume validity initially. Until such a time that a pope comes out as Pope Leo XIII did regarding the Anglicans, validity is presumed - or what reason did pope Leo XIII even bother?

The V2 changes mirror the Anglican errors, which is why many Trad clerics say we can't presume validity.  Why is this so difficult?

This is easily exemplified using any of the sacraments, but let's take the sacrament of baptism for example. A prot who was baptized as a young child and has no knowledge of whether or not it was done correctly wants to become a Catholic and wants to be baptized in the Catholic Church.

 The priest may not simply re/conditionally baptize as if the other baptism was automatically invalid or doubtful, under pain of sacrilege he must first prove invalidity or doubt - because validity is always presumed initially.

Theologians say that marriage and baptism by protestants is *usually* but not always, valid.  It's not a blanket presumption of validity.

This is not the least bit complicated Pax, and the same goes for all of the sacraments, including NO ordinations/consecrations. 

The only reason that baptisms/marriages by protestants are presumed valid is because they a) use the EXACT words of Catholic baptisms, and b) the essential vows of marriage are there.  The novus ordo ordinations/consecrations CHANGED THE WORDS (just like the Anglicans).  The presumption of validity is not there.

The ordaining bishop has got to be sure he is not repeating a sacrament that the Church forbids under pain of mortal sin from being repeated.

A conditional sacramental formula does not "repeat" the sacrament.    

This is very probably invalid.  The new rite of consecration is the problem.

No, if anything, this is doubtful. +ABL and co said that was valid.

The V2 changes mirror the Anglican errors, which is why many Trad clerics say we can't presume validity.  Why is this so difficult?

I don't presume validity, I presume doubtful and do not go to them for anything, ever. I am also not the one who has to prove doubt lest I commit sacrilege administering the re/conditional ordination.

Theologians say that marriage and baptism by protestants is *usually* but not always, valid.  It's not a blanket presumption of validity.

Yes, it is. It has to be, otherwise as regards baptism, why bother to ask the convert if they were ever baptized? Simply go ahead and conditionally or just baptize them. I won't get into the sacrament of matrimony.

The only reason that baptisms/marriages by protestants are presumed valid is because they a) use the EXACT words of Catholic baptisms, and b) the essential vows of marriage are there.  The novus ordo ordinations/consecrations CHANGED THE WORDS (just like the Anglicans).  The presumption of validity is not there.

You could not convince +ABL of this, nor +Williamson, nor most or all of the SSPX bishops and priests - who are not exactly idiots you know.

A conditional sacramental formula does not "repeat" the sacrament.   

Trent's catechism says that it's a sacrilege to even conditionally baptize without first due inquiry, and to do such a thing is an abuse of the sacrament - ask yourself why is it an abuse of the sacrament. The bold is what you are repeating, and what you repeat cannot be done without sacrilege....

"...In this connection, however, there are some matters, in which, to the very great injury of the Sacrament, abuses are of almost daily occurrence, and which therefore demand the diligent attention of pastors. For there are not wanting those who think that no sin is committed if they indiscriminately administer conditional Baptism.
Hence if an infant be brought to them, they think that no inquiry need be made as to whether it was previously baptised, but proceed immediately to baptise the child. Nay more, although they be well aware that the Sacrament was administered at home, they do not hesitate to repeat its administration in the Church conditionally, making use of the solemn ceremonies of the Church.

This certainly they cannot do without sacrilege and without incurring what theologians call an irregularity.
According to the authority of Pope Alexander the conditional form of Baptism is to be used only when after due
inquiry doubts are entertained as to the validity of the previous Baptism. In no other case is it ever lawful to
administer Baptism a second time, even conditionally."

Yes, it is. It has to be, otherwise as regards baptism, why bother to ask the convert if they were ever baptized? Simply go ahead and conditionally or just baptize them.

You're oversimplifying it.  This isn't the only question asked.  The second question is, "What religion baptized you?"  If the answer is Jehova Witness or some crazy Unitarian sect, then it's invalid.

You could not convince +ABL of this, nor +Williamson, nor most or all of the SSPX bishops and priests - who are not exactly idiots you know.

Again, you're oversimplifying it.  
1.  +ABL's comments should be taken in the time/age when he lived (i.e. there were still old rite, valid bishops, operating in the novus ordo).
2.  +W argues that the new mass is valid and ok to attend.  His theology is all over the map, and I can't trust him to make a non-emotional decision.
3.  As we know now, most of the new-sspx leadership wants to be part of the V2 false church, which they've been working for DECADES (even before +ABL died) to infiltrate and change the sspx from within, into an indult community.  They have EVERY reason to minimize the V2's changes to the new rites, since they want to minimize their treachery and heresy.

Let's look at the "Bishop" Huonder case, which the new-sspx treats like a valid bishop.  He was ordained in 1971 (new rite = probably invalid), and then made a bishop in 1998 (again, even if he was a priest, his bishop status is doubtful).  Same applies to +Vigano.

Would you advise a family member to receive confirmation from this "bishop"?  Would you want to receive extreme unction using oils he "blessed"?  You say you have personal doubts, but then keep repeating that +ABL, +W and the new-sspx say this guy is legit.  Why the contradiction?