In a desperate attempt to attack the validity of the +Thuc-line bishops, Bishop Kelly invented this criterion where for episcopal consecrations you had to have two COMPETENT witnesses who could testify that the essential form (and matter) of the Sacrament had been correctly administered.

Father Cekada discovered in his extensive research that there simply is no such criterion anywhere to be found, and that the same degree of moral certainty is all that the Church requires to presume the consecrations valid.

Yet SSPV persist in claiming that episcopal consecration requires a higher degree of certainty.

But ... they forget the principle of peiorem partem sequitur conclusio, the logical "weakest link" principle.

OK, so we're triple-sure that a particular episcopal consecration was valid.  Great.  Fantastic.

How sure are we that the consecrand's ordination was valid?

How about his Baptism?

What if the bishop (ordaining alone) botched his ordination?  What if the priest botched his Baptism, was tired and out of habit pronounced the words as ego te absolvo instead of baptizo, since he hears about 200 Confessions each week but only does a handful of Baptisms ... and the old lady who signed on as a witness didn't know Latin from Swahili?  Has anyone else heard that audio/video of +Cushing attempting to offer Mass? ... or possibly just simulating it?  If he's that bad with the basic form of the Mass, could he have been trusted to ordain valid priests?  What then if those priests later went on to be consecrated bishops?  And I'm sure that +Cushing was not alone.

We could have 350 co-consecrating bishops all fluent in Latin and watching the Rite like a hawk with 5 video recordings being made simultaneously ... but it makes no difference whatsoever if the consecrand's Baptism was invalid or his Ordination invalid.

QED ... the Church does not require any additional degree of certainty for episcopal consecrations than for any other Sacrament, since the certainty of any given episcopal consecration reduces to the degree of certainty required for the other Sacraments, in particular Baptism and Ordination..

Well ABL said to avoid THUC line

Well ABL said to avoid THUC line

Oh well if Pope Lefebvre said it I guess it is infallible.. 

So much focus on validity, the orthodox have valid bishops and they aren’t Catholic.

All THUC bishops today are sedevacantist or some sort of flavour, sedevacantism is a great error and not a son of the great Archbishop Lefebvre.

Stay away from these THUC bishops, you and I today can decide we want to become a priest and absolutely find some THUC bishop to make us a priest in someone’s garage.

So much focus on validity, the orthodox have valid bishops and they aren’t Catholic.

All THUC bishops today are sedevacantist or some sort of flavour, sedevacantism is a great error and not a son of the great Archbishop Lefebvre.

Stay away from these THUC bishops, you and I today can decide we want to become a priest and absolutely find some THUC bishop to make us a priest in someone’s garage.

Again, irrelevant.  We sedevacantist types believe that R&R is the "great error", since it flies in the face of Traditional ecclesiology before Vatican II.  And stop it with the garage nonsense.  Many of the +Thuc-line bishops, at least in the US, are quite respectable and run very solid seminaries:  CMRI and Bishop Sanborn's groups in particular.  There's nothing "garage-like" about their seminaries, and +Sanborn's is much more rigorous a formation than that of the SSPX even.

Again, irrelevant.  We sedevacantist types believe that R&R is the "great error", since it flies in the face of Traditional ecclesiology before Vatican II.  And stop it with the garage nonsense.  Many of the +Thuc-line bishops, at least in the US, are quite respectable and run very solid seminaries:  CMRI and Bishop Sanborn's groups in particular.  There's nothing "garage-like" about their seminaries, and +Sanborn's is much more rigorous a formation than that of the SSPX even.

Utter nonsense, Sedevacantism is a grave error and a LARP, a complete dead end with zero resistance as no one takes them seriously.

True sons of Lefebvre are not sedevacantist.

Just keep telling yourself that and making grautitious statements.  It's your posts that no one takes seriously.  And of course you are the one who will determine who are "TRUE sons of Lefebvfre".

Ladislaus in your younger years you just made sense, a lot of your earlier work completely dismantles this new position you have created in your mind.

You are like a Sean, Salza or Fellay and even Williamson to some degree, your older positions completely contradict and nuke your current position.

My question is, when did you abandon Lefebvre was it early 2000’s or so.

Ladislaus in your younger years you just made sense, a lot of your earlier work completely dismantles this new position you have created in your mind.

You are like a Sean, Salza or Fellay and even Williamson to some degree, your older positions completely contradict and nuke your current position.

My question is, when did you abandon Lefebvre was it early 2000’s or so.

If one remains in the same opinions for more than a decade, one is either incapable of critical thinking or too lazy to exercise it. In the 1980s and 90s, I supported the opinions and arguments of the SSPX. By 2000 I saw glaring holes in those arguments. By 2010 I had arrived at sedeprivationism or, better yet, "sededoubtism" as the term was coined by Ladislaus to understand the current Church crisis.

The fall of the SSPX is very well present in this new video that is theologically weak and historically false:

https://youtu.be/jVui774HhE4?si=6gFHY4bpp38pY7j0

The imposition of the 1962 liturgical books was the result of talk between +Lefebvre and then-Cardinal Ratizinger. Using the 62 would weed-out sedes from the SSPX since they would never accept that revision having been promulgated by Roncalli. +Lefebvre desperately wanted recognition from Rome in the early 1980s and this was one way to help create a path for the recognition that never came.

Prior to 1982, the liturgical usage in the SSPX varied greatly and this was accepted by the 1978 General Chapter. Germany tended to go 62; France tended towards 64; the English-speaking world generally used the pre-54. This imposition of the 62 liturgy was among the catalysts for the split of the so-called Nine in the USA. The imposition violated the agreement establish in the General Chapter.