For the purpose of this thread, let's start with the assumption that the SSPX official (current) position re:
the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration is correct. (Here is the link to the SSPX article with their current position:
(Note: in a follow-up thread I will post a question on whether or not the SSPX presents valid, sound, and truthful propositions in building their case regarding the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration.)
In their article, they state that the new rite of episcopal consecration when used precisely as published by the Vatican can be valid, but that particular translations, adaptations, or usages, must be examined on a case by case basis since these particular manifestations can be invalid or of doubtful validity. The article goes on to cite the example of Cardinal Danneels' episcopal consecration as one particular case of doubtful validity.
How would the SSPX (or anyone of good faith for that matter) determine whether or not a bishop was validly consecrated in each of the following three scenarios?
- The priest is ostensibly consecrated a bishop using the new rite precisely as published by the Vatican by a consecrator, and one co-consecrator, who were doubtfully consecrated using a translation of the new rite, but also by a third co-consecrator, "an old timer", who was ordained a priest in the old rite and consecrated a bishop in the old rite.
- Same scenario as above, but rather than the new rite being used as precisely published by the Vatican, all three bishops use a translation of the new rite.
I could go on, but I am interested in what you all have to say about the two presented above.
Thank you. God bless. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!