CathInfo.com

Thank you. 

Do you have a citation for the Cardinal Ottaviani reference? The SSPX article says that new rite passed the review of the Holy Office under Cardinal Ottaviani and that "Cardinal Ottaviani would never have allowed a rite of doubtful validity to pass review" (Validity of new rite of episcopal consecration, part II). They also taut Archbishop Lefebvre as having "never called in question the validity of the new rite of episcopal ordinations as published by Rome". (Part II) And that "If Archbishop Lefebvre had had a serious and positive doubt about the validity of the ordinations, he would not have failed to say so given the seriousness of the consequences." (Part II). 

Is this SSPX article pure propaganda? 

I have talked to people that were with the SSPX from the beginning that confirm what you say about the practice of the SSPX re: automatically conditionally re-ordaining NO priests every time they entered the Society. But then again, I hear of other cases were the practice of not always conditionally re-ordaining goes back even before Bp. Fellay...

I went from the Novus Ordo right to the resistance...so it really is important for me to better understand these issues...

Thank you for responding. I know for many of you this is probably a topic that has been beaten to death...but for me it will help me better understand the current crisis in the Church. 

The Ottaviani quote is regarding the consecration during Mass, not an episcopal consecration.  So, no, it does not directly relate to this topic.  Sorry for the confusion.  I was merely using it as an example of the "kind" of change that the novus ordo made to the sacraments - they corrupted the rubrics for the form of the sacrament so that it was entirely dependent upon the minister (since they knew that God would not allow them to make invalid sacraments).  Then, they corrupted the seminaries so that most of the "priests" and "bishops" are either

1) not trained properly and don't know the proper intention of the church,
2) are infiltrators/communists who won't have the proper intention, on purpose, or
3) they do have the proper intention of the Church, but they don't have the power to say the mass/provide sacraments because those who ordained them were of groups #1 and #2, which means they are "fake priests/bishops" even if they want to be real ones (and love Christ).

The freemasons/communists indirectly attacked the mass/sacraments this way since they knew that they could not directly invalidate them.

It's truly a mess.  The only way to fix it is to have a large-scale re-ordination/re-consecration ceremony.



Ottaviani Intervention

http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ottaviani.htm

Footnote:
29. As they appear in the context of the Novus Ordo, the words of Consecration could be valid in virtue of the priest's intention. But since their validity no longer comes from the force of the sacramental words themselves (ex vi verborum)--or more precisely, from the meaning (modus significandi) the old rite of the Mass gave to the formula--the words of Consecration in the New Order of Mass could also not be valid. Will priests in the near future, who receive no traditional formation and who rely on the Novus Ordo for the intention of "doing what the Church does," validly consecrate at Mass? One may be allowed to doubt it.