Sorry Neil, I thought it was obvious..
Apparently it was not.
Apology accepted! Now, go in peace, my son.................. (that was the punch line)
I don't suppose it's unreasonable to overlook a detail like that. After all, you were thinking about the validity of the priest's ordination and secondarily about the validity of the bishop's consecration. Of course you were. But you specifically were keeping those topics mute so as to make the "Catechism Class" lesson more exciting -- or, was it, more obfuscated? Well, whatever the case, the whole point was that the question was more challenging when these details were omitted, wasn't it?
I still find it glaringly ironic that when the SSPX commits the grave error of glossing over a detail (such as the presumed validity of priestly orders and/or episcopal consecrations) they get hammered with a CI thread that inadvertently commits a closely related error.
The principal difference on the surface is, when SeanJohnson is faced with the exposition of shall we say, hypocrisy, he saves himself by apologizing for the oversight (which he apparently made while trying to make a thread more interesting) but the SSPX doesn't seem to be capable of apologizing for anything. Do they?