I’m not blaming the sspx, because they didn’t create the situation, BUT, being that +Lefebvre used to conditionally ordain moreso that the current sspx leadership, I ask myself what reasons does the current sspx have to trust the new rites now, vs 20 yrs ago, when nowadays there are even FEWER old rite bishops alive?
See, I don't see that +ABL used to conditionally ordain more than they do now. Nearly everything Brent told me is pretty much the same story numerous different SSPX priests have told me over the last 30-40 years.
In fact, back in the early days of the SSPX, most defecting NO priests were ordained in the old rite, not the new, so in most cases back then, there was no doubt, and even then, there were very few defectors - most defectors were simply coming back to what they had left, and again, even then there were only a very few as far as I know.
It is also true that the new rite was still relatively new back then and there were only very few defectors who were young and ordained in the new rite. To most priests and laypeople outside of the SSPX, the SSPX was in schism, apostates and disobedient radicals who were scorned, slandered and ran from - much worse than today, so I don't know if there were even a half a dozen young defectors in the SSPX's first 25 years.
Add to that, the confusion and chaos of those earlier years certainly would have made most trads insist that whatever the NO did, was certainly doubtful at best, whether or not it really actually was. I myself still carry this train of thought, I guess I always will, but when it comes to the validity of the NO ordination rite, all that takes a back seat to the constant teaching of the Church that validity is presumed, not presumed invalid.
Because that is the starting point, and because it is a sacrilege to automatically conditionally ordain, read: indiscriminately conditionally ordain, then automatic conditional ordaining is not permitted, it's not even an option.