Not so fast. That was taken ad verbatim from the May 5, 1988 Protocol signed between Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger, which was then rescinded because the Archbishop felt Rome couldn't be trusted on the issue of setting a date for the consecration of bishops, not because he disagreed with the Protocol. These can all be found in Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais.

So what?  ABL isn’t infallible.  If the FORM of new rites are so ambiguous and poorly worded that they require a MENTAL intention of the minister, then that’s pathetic.  And dangerous.  And highly doubtful.  

Also, +Lefebvre's position isn't that of God either, as it's well known that he vacillated somewhat, especially on issues like this.

In addition, the Mr. Stark episode took place during at time when +Lefebvre had swung to the left, was trying to reach a +Fellay-ite practical agreement with Rome, begging them to let him make the "experiment of Tradition" within the Conciliar pantheon.  He went left on quite a few issues in the early 1980s.  But then by 1985 or so, he swung back to the other direction.

After about the mid-1980s until several years into the +Fellay era, I have not heard of a single priest who was allowed to work with SSPX who had not received conditional ordination.  There were a couple suspects, but then when someone did a bit of digging, aka asked Bishop Williamson, in every case I know of +Williamson affirmed that a conditional had been performed.  I don't know of any cases where the presider REFUSED it either, but then much of that happened behind closed doors we'll never know, and we can't prove a negative.  HAD some priest refused in, say, the late 1980s through about the year 2000, I'm certain that the SSPX would have just said, thanks but no thanks, and go find somewhere else to exercise your ministry ... if for no other reason than they didn't want to deal with backlash from the faithful.

Bishop Williamson, for instance, felt the NO Rites were valid, but he nevertheless believed the faithful could not-unreasonably come to a different conclusion and that the had a right to be at peace about the validity of the Sacraments.  In other words, he did not have the hubris to impose his conclusion on the consciences of others like neo-SSPX are doing todya.

Was there not a case of two brothers, both ordained in the new rite, who joined the SSPX sometime in the 1980s?  Both were offered conditional ordination by  +ABL one accepted and the other refused.

I’ve been told by a priest that gelatin used for medication, like capsules, liquid, or chewable does not break abstinence or fast including Eucharistic fast if taking it cannot be delayed. In these cases, it is a vehicle to convey medication to the body, not a food or drink. Nobody eats a Z-pack of Zithromycin, drinks Mucinex, or eats omeprazole gel tabs for GERD!
 

THIS ^^^ 

^^Same here!^^ Still praying!  My sister got a promotion to road test coordinator at her driving school. The strange thing is that she has worked for this school with a breaks for two years of college and two years of having babies in some capacity since she was 18. Her college was totally useless and she flunked out just before the end of her second (of four) years. She was supposedly majoring in business management, but in reality, majored in socializing!  She only went because our parents thought a college degree was a guarantee to “a steady, well-paying job.” They forced her to go and ended up repaying the loan.
Parents! If your child isn’t interested in college, do not force the matter! It’s no longer 1985!  
She went to a “Catholic” school and it was more liberal and the students partied harder and crazier than at my state school. 

Huh? Who is it? When was it? To which movement and philosophy does he refer?  
If it is old, from +Bp. Williamson’s “How many juice were unalived in the hollow cost?” introduction to SSPX seminary, nobody cares what some 18 or 19 year old seminarian said 20+ years ago! 
(RIP, Bp. Williamson)