Bishop Thomas Aquinas refuses to reveal who the ordaining bishop was, where or when he was ordained. All the faithful know is he has a Novus Ordo ordination. That is it. You are not allowed to question it any further as far as I know. The video from their official youtube channel confirms this.

Someone should tell the bishop that sacraments, especially Holy Orders, are public business.

This is Catholicism, not Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. 

Someone should tell the bishop that sacraments, especially Holy Orders, are public business.

This is Catholicism, not Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.

Tell that to Bishop Williamson, and to the various secret Thuc/Mendez consecrations/ordinations.

Are you sure about this?

Oh yes, 100%.

You can read Archbishop Lefebvre's treatment of the new rite of ordination in Open Letter to confused Catholics:
http://sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-7.htm

This is Fr Calderon's conclusion to his study (I hope to post the entire study soon):

Now, in a matter of the utmost importance for the life of the Church, such as the validity of the episcopate, it is necessary to have absolute certainty. Therefore, in order to be able to accept this rite with peace of conscience, it would be necessary to count not only on the judgement of theologians, but also on the infallible judgement of the Magisterium.

As for the practical attitude to be taken with regard to the new episcopal consecrations, the one that the Fraternity has maintained up to now seems to us to be justified:

1. The very probable validity of the rite seems to us to make it morally acceptable to occasionally attend Mass (traditional rite) celebrated by a priest or a bishop ordained or consecrated in the new rite, and even to receive communion therein; it seems to us acceptable, in case of necessity, to receive absolution from them; to treat them as priests and bishops and not as laymen in costume; it seems to us acceptable to allow them to celebrate in our own homes. For the shadows that hover over the validity of their priesthood are but shadows and in all these activities our responsibility is not engaged concerning the priesthood exercised. And the remote risk that a communion or an absolution may be invalid is not so serious.

2. But the positive and objective defects from which this rite suffers, which prevent us from being certain of its validity, it seems to us -until there is a Roman judgement, for which many things would have to change– justify and make necessary the conditional reordination of priests ordained by new bishops and, if necessary, the conditional reconsecration of these bishops. Such doubts cannot be tolerated at the very root of the sacraments (33).

Footnote 33 says "The moralists speak much about the necessity for certainty in the validity of the sacraments".

And here is Bishop Williamson on the same:
https://stmarcelinitiative.org/bishops-valid-ii/
https://stmarcelinitiative.org/bishops-valid-iii/

Could you post this video you are referring to please CA and alert us to the relevant time mark?

The entire 2 minute video is only a defense of the Novus Ordo ordination of Fr. Jahir. This was a response to many faithful feeling uneasy about receiving sacraments from a priest with a Novus Ordo ordination. They are accused publicly of being prideful for doing so by Bishop Thomas Aquinas in the video. He refuses to inform about who the bishop was that ordained the priest and even where he went to the seminary or when he was ordained. He only instead reveals that Fr. Jahir chose a novus ordo bishop with a “traditional spirit”. Nothing more will be told. I was told that Fr. Jahir will not accept conditional ordination and the Brazilian resistance does not require it, in fact, they seem to avoid it as was the case with Fr. Gilberto and others who broke with the resistance and sought to be conditionally ordained by Bishop Rodrigo Da Silva. This is just one of many problems with the Brazilian resistance led by Bishop Thomas Aquinas. 
Here is the video in Portuguese of two minutes length. 

https://youtu.be/PzApOv6C2ZQ?si=DZvFTvWDQAxEc7J9

Oh yes, 100%.

You can read Archbishop Lefebvre's treatment of the new rite of ordination in Open Letter to confused Catholics:
http://sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-7.htm

This is Fr Calderon's conclusion to his study (I hope to post the entire study soon):

Now, in a matter of the utmost importance for the life of the Church, such as the validity of the episcopate, it is necessary to have absolute certainty. Therefore, in order to be able to accept this rite with peace of conscience, it would be necessary to count not only on the judgement of theologians, but also on the infallible judgement of the Magisterium.

As for the practical attitude to be taken with regard to the new episcopal consecrations, the one that the Fraternity has maintained up to now seems to us to be justified:

1. The very probable validity of the rite seems to us to make it morally acceptable to occasionally attend Mass (traditional rite) celebrated by a priest or a bishop ordained or consecrated in the new rite, and even to receive communion therein; it seems to us acceptable, in case of necessity, to receive absolution from them; to treat them as priests and bishops and not as laymen in costume; it seems to us acceptable to allow them to celebrate in our own homes. For the shadows that hover over the validity of their priesthood are but shadows and in all these activities our responsibility is not engaged concerning the priesthood exercised. And the remote risk that a communion or an absolution may be invalid is not so serious.

2. But the positive and objective defects from which this rite suffers, which prevent us from being certain of its validity, it seems to us -until there is a Roman judgement, for which many things would have to change– justify and make necessary the conditional reordination of priests ordained by new bishops and, if necessary, the conditional reconsecration of these bishops. Such doubts cannot be tolerated at the very root of the sacraments (33).

Footnote 33 says "The moralists speak much about the necessity for certainty in the validity of the sacraments".

And here is Bishop Williamson on the same:
https://stmarcelinitiative.org/bishops-valid-ii/
https://stmarcelinitiative.org/bishops-valid-iii/

All of the above reduces to the following:

Major: The Church has always required that Holy Orders be certainly valid.

Minor: The sacramental "forms" used in the New Rites of Holy Orders are not certainly valid.

Conclusion: Therefore, it is necessary to conditionally ordain New Rite "priests" in the traditional Rite and to conditionally consecrate New Rite "bishops" in the traditional Rite to ensure that their Holy Orders are certainly valid.

Umm… does anyone know if the Conditionally ordained Bp. Vigano is publicly backing Trump for 2024?

Get the popcorn ready Incredulous!  At this point, do we even know if Bp. Vigano can vote in an American election?  Why would he endorse any candidate in this dogfight? One could vote for Trump, Kennedy, Vivek, or deSantis at this point.  Although I am not sure where Kennedy stands on abortion.  

Unless Bp. Vigano plans to ordain or consecrate men, why does it matter?  Now, when he consecrates ten bishops, kaboom, at that point he has a moral obligation to make known to the priests and laity that he is conditionally consecrated, because the laity and priests have a right to know that they are receiving valid sacraments.  

Traditionalist bishops (and priests) should not present themselves and behave in any manner that implies that they have any canonical mission or jurisdiction. They exist as emergency providers of sacraments in these crisis times, nothing more. The laity are very much at liberty to question them regarding all manner of ecclesiastical matters.

There is a text that was posted in the official website of Bp. Thomas Aquinas' monastery about this issue.

The text has almost exactly the same content of the video that Centroamerica briefed us on.

Here is a Google Translator version of the text: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&hl=en-US&u=https://www.mosteirodasantacruz.org/post/em-defesa-do-pe-jahir-e-de-seu-sacerd%25C3%25B3cio&client=webapp

Quote

In defense of Father Jahir and his priesthood               
                   

We want to record here our vehement disapproval of those who, among the sedevacantists, attack the Rev. Father Jahir Britto and deny his priesthood.                       

It is frivolity, an act of pride, to cast doubt on the priesthood of those who within the Tradition have always done excellent work, like Father Jahir, who founded a religious congregation that served and continues to serve countless souls, and whose priesthood was received from a traditional-minded bishop.                                           

Dom Lefebvre did not doubt the ordinations in the new rite. The only thing he said could be doubted was the bishop's intention, and there is no reason to doubt the intention of the bishop who ordained Father Jahir, as he was a bishop trained in the old way, a bishop whom Father Jahir chose. for its more traditional spirit. So, to question the priesthood of the Reverend. Father is to disturb the faithful in an unworthy and irresponsible way.


We rise, therefore, vehemently to defend Father Jahir's priestly honor and remember all the good he did for souls in Bahia and outside Bahia, as well as the good done by his community and in particular by Father Joaquim, which was formed by Father Jahir and which has given assistance to souls in numerous states in Brazil. For the honor of Father Jahir, his monastery and his faithful, we make this protest, and more than a protest, a condemnation of those who disturb souls by questioning the priesthood of Father Jahir Britto.

May Our Lady bless us and protect us from every error and every unfounded disturbance. So be it.

+ Thomas Aquinas, OSB