+Lienart's having been a Freemason was proven, and not just speculation, and +Lefebvre admitted it on two different occasions.  If one were to believe Scuмmage's fake made-up theology, there's an extraordinariliy high chance the +Lefebvre was never a valid priest, and therefore we've had millions of invalid Sacraments among Traditionalists.  Except of course that this buffoon simply made it up.

I'm not a theologian, so I can't argue the point of "internal intention" one way or the other. I don't know if the Church supplies in such cases.

But I know this: God would never allow the Catholic Church to be reduced in number to 5 or 10 persons. And he wouldn't allow 80% of the lifeboats (SSPX and SSPX-line) to be destroyed, in a Crisis that was to last 55+ more years. God gives everyone a chance to save his soul. He would possibly, even LIKELY, require souls to put in more serious effort, some sacrifices (less frequent Masses, long drives) but He would NEVER make it morally impossible for the VAST MAJORITY of Catholics of good will, even the ones aware of the Crisis.

Remember, +Lefebvre isn't just the SSPX, but all the priests who left it over the years, the Resistance, SSPV, etc.

And when God raises up a saint, with the hand of Providence heavy upon him, such that anyone with the Faith can see the hand of God in his life and career, it is morally impossible for that man to be a fountainhead of hundreds of fake priests, hundreds of thousands of invalid sacraments, etc. Yes, I know the Novus Ordo has validity issues. But it's the Novus Ordo (looks Lutheran), not the Tridentine Mass. Souls of good will, those seeking God first, those with zero human respect CAN wake up to the reality and save themselves. There are things God just wouldn't allow. God is good. Even in temptations and trials, God *always* gives us an "out". He gives us a fighting chance. No one is going to convince me EVER that God would participate in a conspiracy of deceit, with no chance of seeing the problem, or no way out.

As Tom Nelson taught me, you don't have a man who loves his wife, pays his taxes, mows his lawn, takes care of his kids, goes to Church, but he's a hitman.

It seems near-blasphemous (minus the "near") to me, to suggest that God is less than competent. He could guide +Lefebvre to perfectly be trained, prepared, and positioned to play all these important roles in this age of the Church -- but OOPS! somehow we forgot to figure out a way to make him a real priest/bishop. May God forgive you for what you are implying about Him!

For every 10,000 Trads, about 8,000 of them have +Lefebvre to indirectly thank for their Mass. Just a rough estimate, but I'm not off by much.
Even many sede groups have +Lefebvre to thank somewhat, because the latter brought attention and media coverage to the existence of the Traditional Movement. Many who are sede "today" weren't warming the pews at a sede chapel originally.
(I'm excluding Motu/Indult groups here, because they are a different kettle of fish. "Latin Mass Catholics". They are not really Trad, in the classic sense. They don't believe in a Crisis in the Church, just that the Latin Mass is "healthier" than the McDonald's of the Novus Ordo. Also, they have no problem with the Conciliar Church/authority/Orders aside from the Novus Ordo Mass itself.)

The only one I know of in the Traditional Catholic Movement, who has a problem w/ Abp. Lefebvre (because of Leinart),  is the Franciscan Group in Rochester, NY. 

+Leinart is only being brought up to prove a point to Tom here. If there is anyone who we could say would be internally "withholding intention" it would be a Freemason. They don't intend to do what the Church does, they want to destroy the Church. But, as +Leinart ordained +Lefebvre with the proper matter and form, the intention to do what the Church does is presumed.

Most theologians said becoming a Bishop covers for it.

It is not a given that Freemason clergy are trying to withhold intention. Many of them joined for ambition. They are not necessarily privy to the outright destructive intentions of Masonry in the direct way you describe. Bishop Williamson talks about this in his conferences on Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. You should listen to them.

Compare that with the very credible reporting that Thuc withheld his intention deliberately.
Now there is some arguments that is not true, but the point is that we cant verify that because he is dead. 

So in the meantime, we need to stay away, and conditionally ordain those who seek it.

Correct, WorldsAway.

It was only a minority opinion that considered episcopal consecration of a priest to be valid under any circuмstances, e.g. using an Eastern Rite form ... but there's zero chance the Latin Rite form would be valid on a non-priest.  So, the essential form must unequivocally declare what you're doing and who you're doing it to.  To "COMPLETE" Holy Orders "in this priest" is utterly nonsensical when being applied to a non-priest.  Clearly invalid.  But even if this guy could cling to one or two theologians to held that view, at best it's postiively doubtful, and you treat it as invalid for all intents and purposes with the sole exception of if you're in danger of death without any other options.

As for +Lienart, I guess that this clown's speculation that +Leinart may not have really meant it ... that's all I need now to remove all doubt of validity.  Thanks for putting that one to rest.  No, +Lienart was KNOWN to have been a Commie-sympathizer at the very least, and it wasn't just because he wanted to ride around in a tiny car with a silly hat, and drink beer at the corner lodge.

I have scoured the internet and sent some AI bots also in search of any verification of that allegation in The Angelus ... and there is none.  You can, instead find statements from +Thuc expressing his regret for the Palmar consecrations and repudiating them, but not in terms of validity.  What The Angelus did was conflate +Thuc's repudiation of the Palmar consecrtaions with Father Cekada's blunder in characterizing his response to the Novus Ordo Mass which he concelebrated as "simulating the Sacrament" and witholding intention.  The Angelus conflated the two into their ridiculous false analysis.

To give you a window into their credibility, the published a personal correspondence of mine without requesting permission, made edits without my prermission, injected bad translations of some Latin quotes that I had been too lazy to translate (given who I wrote the thing to/for), and SPELLED MY NAME WRONG.