+ABL could not and did not try to insist what you're insisting, instead, he consecrated certainly valid bishops to close the matter.

??  Wasn't this a sacrilege, according to your interpretation.

it works differently for lay people than it does for bishops. We avoid the NOers and that's the end of it for us,

Why are you allowed to ignore the Church/Trent and presume invalidity or entertain doubts?

the example of Pope Leo XIII, until all NO ordinations and consecrations are declared null or doubtful by a pope, all NO ordinations are presumed valid initially.

So, according to you, the sspx leadership must presume validity but you, personally, are allowed to doubt them?  This is makes zero sense.

So, according to you, the sspx leadership must presume validity but you, personally, are allowed to doubt them?  This is makes zero sense.

Apparently, it would only make all the sense in the world if you were the one doing the ordination.

Apparently, it would only make all the sense in the world if you were the one doing the ordination.

Or, it would make sense if the sspx wants to be friends with new-rome.

Or, it would make sense if the sspx wants to be friends with new-rome.

I suppose it makes sense to everyone except those who do not understand why the always presumes validity initially.

If Trent applies to priests/bishops, then it also applies to laity. 

It would if laity could administer the sacrament.

So let me get this straight...when it comes to administering the sacraments (i.e. an action), clerics must assume V2 sacraments are legit and follow Trent.  But the laity can mentally disagree (i.e. a thought) with the clerics (and with Trent)?  And how does this promote church unity?  This leads to chaos.


You're basically preaching subjectivism, which is truth/facts can mean different things to different people.  Clerics do one thing; laity do another.  Crazy.

Your viewing this matter through the wrong lenses. Try to view it through the Church's.

All the trad clerics I know and have ever known since I was probably 8 or 9 years old, all believe as I do, i.e. that NO ordinations are at best, doubtful. They also know that a re-ordination or a conditional ordination cannot be done without due inquiry into the NO ordination, because initially validity is presumed.

 For some reason, to you this causes chaos, disunites the faithful and is subjectivism. I am adding this to the list of things that make me go hhmmmm.  
 

I suppose it makes sense to everyone except those who do not understand why the always presumes validity initially.

Stubborn, this idea of yours that Trent is teaching that the fabricated sacramental rites of the New Church should be presumed to be valid until Rome declares them invalid is mistaken. Trent teaches no such thing.

It is not in the Pope's job description to invent or revolutionise sacramental rites. They are part of Tradition. Which does not mean that some change may not be valid, as in the case of the new rite of ordination, judged by someone competent like ABL according to the Church's sacramental theology. However, if they are judged to be doubtful or invalid, then there can never be a presumption of validity on a case by case basis - it entirely removes the need for any investigation and every single ordination must be repeated at least conditionally.

Everything you read from Archbishop Lefebvre regarding the validity of the new rite of priestly ordination centres around, not your quote from Trent, but the theology of the Church relating to the essential form of the sacrament. It is upon this that the judgement is made. Because ABL judged this new form to be valid, a case by case enquiry was then required to ascertain whether or not there were doubts surrounding the validity of the ordination for other reasons - the intention (since the revolutionised rite can no longer be presumed to secure this), the minister, whether or not improvising and tampering with matter and form could have been an issue...

When it comes to the new rite of episcopal consecration (NREC), the neo-SSPX presumes validity since the study of Fr Pierre-Marie of the Avrille Dominicans concluded thus in his 2005 study. However, since that study the SSPX superiors saw fit to request Fr Calderon SSPX from the Seminary in La Reja to study the question. He concluded probable validity but also stressed that this was not sufficient and that all these consecrations (and ordinations depending on them) must be 'repeated'. That is, no case by case enquiry is required - the presumption must be possible invalidity - and nothing short of an infallible decision of the magisterium can remove that doubt and the requirement of repeating the ordination conditionally. I'm no theologian, but having read this study, I do not see how anyone could possibly conclude otherwise. I hope to be able to post the English translation soon, just waiting on a very busy bishop to check the theology! Bishop Williamson has expressed his agreement with Fr Calderon's conclusions in his Eleison Comments.

You claim above that ABL, BW, Fr Schmidberger and Canon Hesse "all said" that a new rite bishop ordains valid priests. In response to my request you provided two pieces of evidence. 1. Fr Hesse's ordination. You provide a quote from Fr Hesse where he evidently says that ABL, Bishop Fellay, Bishop Williamson and Fr Schmidberger all said that his ordination was valid and there was no need for him to be 're-ordained".
Are you aware that Fr Hesse was ordained by an old-rite bishop, Cardinal Sabattani, who was consecrated in 1965? So that in no way relates to the validity of the NREC but only the new rite of priestly ordination. 2. You provided a link to your phone conversation with 'Brent' from the Angelus press in 2019 who told you what the process is with the neo-SSPX investigating ordinations of new priests coming to Tradition. Further comment is superfluous.