I don't know exactly what +Williamson has to say, but I do know that in the past, both he and +Lefebvre said the NO ordination of at least one priest, Fr. Hesse, was valid.

In one of his talks posted on YouTube, Fr. Hesse is quoted as saying: "...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...."

In previous discussion on the matter, I called the SSPX and posted what the man told me here.


Read Chapter 15 in Who Shall Ascend? (also attached below) where Fr. Wathen touches on the subject, here is a snip....

"...It is not our purpose in these pages to decide whether the new ordination rite is invalid, though, as we shall see, the argument is substantial enough that we are bound to allow for this possibility. Furthermore, we must see the issue in the context of the total redefinition and reconstitution of the Church, such as was set in motion at the Council. In view of the fact that, since the Council, the priest's role has been in the process of being modified, as we said, to that of a Protestant presbyter, there is every reason to deduce that the new ordination rite sabotages the Sacrament of Holy Orders according to
the explicit program and purposes of those now in power. (The reader is reminded that the very doubt which this change creates serves the malevolent purposes of the conspirators as well as does the certitude of invalidity, because from the doubt flows controversy, disagreements, factions, confusion, and disquietude among the clergy and the faithful.)..."

Very good information above. I agree with the highlighted text above from Fr. Wathen, in that he states that the doubt which the change creates serves the purposes of the malevolent conspirators (who are the Modernists, I take it), but that the certitude of invalidity also causes controversy, disagreements, factions, confusion, disquietude among the clergy and faithful.

Sedevacantists, IMO, in particular tend to view the new sacraments as invalid, since they are no strangers to controversy. But it's not only Sedes of course who say that the New Rite is invalid.

If I recall correctly, Fr. Hesse maintained that the New Rite of Consecration is valid, and he gave the reasons for this stance in one of his talks, which I cannot now find with an internet search. But his reasoning made sense. Of course, the New Rite of consecration may not be administered properly, due to the essential role of the priest being changed of course, as has been explained already. +ABL did not always re-ordain the priests who defected from the Novus Ordo to the SSPX. Therefore, it stands to reason that it isn't the words of consecration that are the problem, but rather how it is administered, or if the words are changed.

If a priest -- or layman -- has a choice between "certain" and "doubtful", one is OBLIGATED to choose the "certain". It would be sinful to go with a doubtful matter, minister, etc. when a certain one was available.

A doubtful sacrament is no sacrament at all, regardless of having an additional "certain" option.  

It would be sinful to go with the doubtful under ANY circuмstances whatsoever.

Fr. Hesse is quoted as saying: "...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...."

Oddly, the combined value of the opinions of ABL, Fellay and Schmidz (and Williamson or whoever else you want to insert/add here) is...ZERO.  

The only responsible thing to do (or to have done) is to conditionally re-ordain.  The stakes are WAY too high, both for the priests/bishops involved and ALL who approach them for the Sacraments. The safer course is obvious and must be (should have been) followed in order to remove all possible doubt.  

Who decides what issue is "bigger"? If there is ANY issue AT ALL with ANY of the "sacraments", the ENTIRE game is OVER.  As if it is acceptable to doubt the validity of Sacraments properly instituted by Holy Mother Church??!?!  What is Her raison d'etre if not the sanctification and salvation of souls, accomplished with the infallible, perfect, spotless and holy assistance of the Holy Ghost Himself??@?#!!!!
IF there is ANY doubt about ANY of the NO "sacraments" -- and such doubt is part of the very essence of ALL within Traddieland, regardless of their take on the most rotten men in history to claim the See of Peter -- the ONLY logical conclusion is that such must have NOT come from Our Mother but from an impostor.  Oddly enough, we all agree that it is incomprehensibly incongruous for Our Mother to savagely devour Her own children -- yet, that is exactly what has been happening day in, day out for more than 55 years, according to some.

Chill out Gladdy.  I was comparing the changes in the NREC to the New Rite of ordination.  Without valid bishops there are no valid priests.  Obviously, as a sede, I don't think any of these sacraments are certainly valid.

By the way, do you approach any of the traditional clergy's sacraments?

Chill out Gladdy.  I was comparing the changes in the NREC to the New Rite of ordination.  Without valid bishops there are no valid priests.  Obviously, as a sede, I don't think any of these sacraments are certainly valid.

By the way, do you approach any of the traditional clergy's sacraments?

I have been away for the greater part of almost a decade.  I honestly do not know everyone's position as of now.

I do receive the Sacraments, but not as consistently as I would like. It is a question of geography more than anything.

FWIW, my replies are not necessarily directed at those I quote (the old CI was WAY easier to quote within posts...I have to modify every.single.post just to get the spacing I want...HeL-Lo-O, Matthew, why are things worse than a decade ago???).  I respond to points and hope to clarify some things for those who might be following the discussion.

LOL! So, according to Gladdy, "the combined value of the opinions of (+)ABL, (+)Fellay and (+)Schmidz [Fr. Schmidberger] (and (+)Williamson or whoever else you want to insert/add here) is...ZERO". Whereas your private judgment supposedly is infallibly binding and infinitely valuable? Typical sede-vacantist rubbish. 

There have been docuмented Eucharistic Miracles in Masses offered by Priests ordained in the new rite. This fact alone shows that the new rite is not always invalid, contrary to sedevacantist polemicists. 

Second, the study showed the new rite is derived from two Eastern Rites (specifically, the Coptic and the West Syrian), the validity of which is evidently not subject to doubt. Fr. Pierre Marie is careful to distinguish the prudence of the reform (was it a good idea?) with per se validity. You've made no reasonable rebuttals to the same, nor have you even given the slightest indication that you read the study and understood the reasons for its conclusions. 

Yes, I agree and it is dogmatically true that the Church cannot give anything intrinsically evil; just as it is dogmatically true that St. Peter must have Perpetual Successors; that is for certain. Yet, there is also a human side to the issue, and the ideas of churchmen may not always be perfectly prudent; no rite approved by the Church can be sacrilegious or heretical. But different rites can be more or less good, according to the care taken, on the human side, in promulgating them. 

Do you really not understood the difference between observing the entire ceremony of Baptism and saying only the words "I baptize you ...". You absurdly and arbitrarily deem the rite to be entirely invalid, yet claim others cannot legitimately deduce, by reason illumined by the Faith, that it is certainly valid but only objectively inferior, in conferring Grace.

SimpleMan, sure, there's no hurry. Take your time and go through the study at your leisure. To answer your question; yes, if the rite of ordination to the Priesthood were invalid, the new Bishops would not be true Bishops either. But most traditional Priests don't consider the new rite of ordination to be invalid. For some of the above reasons, I agree with that. 

God Bless.