he following is taken from pages 10-17 of the Autumn 2025 (https://catacombs.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/Recusant/Recusant 64 Autumn 2025.pdf) issue of The Recusant [slightly adapted and reformatted]:
Fr. Robinson: It’s All Valid, Trust Us!
Fr. Paul Robinson and his obsequious sidekick are being wheeled-out again…!
Yes that title is an exaggeration. But only a slight one. Like his previous podcast videos, this was a penance to watch, and not just because there are YouTube adverts every few minutes! In this “SSPX Podcast” video, released in July 2025, we are told in the introduction that: “Fr. Paul Robinson responds to objections surrounding the Society of St. Pius X’s decision not to conditionally ordain every priest ordained in the Novus Ordo rite who joins the Society. Why doesn’t the SSPX re-ordain across the board?”
This is already misleading the audience. The real question ought to be why the SSPX has so radically changed its approach to this question: conditional ordination is now the exception whereas it used to be the rule. The real question which needs looking into, then, is what has changed. Why is the SSPX now so reluctant to conditionally ordain Novus Ordopriests?
Fr. Robinson begins by telling his listeners that: “We do believe that the new rites are valid. … And then secondly, we believe that you need to have serious grounds before repeating a non-repeatable sacrament,” which, he says, means, “you have to have a positive doubt.” This is, of course: a straw man. Nobody is claiming that conditional ordinations should be done without a good reason. The issue then is whether there are serious grounds, whether there is a positive doubt and if so, what it might look like. Incredibly, this question is not actually addressed in the entire hour-long video.
“Case by case”
Archbishop Lefebvre, Fr. Robinson admits, wanted to go case-by-case and he claims that that is what the SSPX does today. But the more he says, the more it becomes clear that what the Archbishop meant by “case by case” and what the SSPX does today are quite different. What the SSPX does today, it seems, is to look at the actual ceremony in which the priest was ordained by watching a video of it. That, according to what Fr. Robinson says, is what the present-day SSPX calls looking at an ordination “case by case.”
“So, you know, when we have a new priest who comes to us, we typically receive the ordination video and then I send that on to [US District Superior] Fr. Fullerton and Bishop Fellay and they make the judgement, they assess what they think.”
He then adds that “The last thing anyone wants us to do is to change our principles” which he says haven’t changed “for the last fifty years” - (God forbid that that should ever happen!) - adding that those who don’t like it are taking a sedevacantist line, before going on to discuss “the nine” sedevacantist priests in 1983 as though that is what this is really all about.
Andrew then raises as an objection the claim that “Archbishop Lefebvre always conditionally re-ordained any priest ordained in the new rite who came to him: another straw man! To this, Fr. Robinson replies: “This is an easy objection to answer because it’s just not true.” You write your own objections and then you find them easy to answer? Fancy that! It is true that the Archbishop, when looking at Novus Ordo priests case-by-case did sometimes come across one whose ordination gave no real grounds for doubt. This is largely because the new rite of priestly ordination, at least in Latin, is so similar to the Traditional Rite (the only difference being “ut” - a word whose absence does not obscure what is taking place) and because in the 1970s and 80s many Novus Ordo ordinations were still being done by men who had become bishops before the changes to the rite of episcopal consecration in 1968.
This was the case with Fr. Glover, one of the examples brought up by Fr. Robinson (the other being a Fr. Stark, presumably an American?). Fr. Glover was an Oratorian ordained in the new rite of [ordination] in Latin, by a bishop consecrated in the Traditional Rite before 1968. A doctor of canon law and member of the Roman Rota, he was a larger than life character whom plenty of people in England still remember.
The same is true of the late Fr. Gregory Hesse who was ordained in the new rite of priestly ordination in 1981 by Archbishop Sabattini, who himself had been consecrated as a bishop before the changes. And there were others too in those days; but clearly, as time progressed, such cases would become less likely. Archbishop Lefebvre himself as good as said that the situation surrounding doubtful conciliar sacraments was becoming worse. What he would have said in 2025, fully fifty-seven years after the changes to the rite of episcopal consecration, is anyone’s guess, but something tells me he wouldn’t be more favourably inclined towards it!
“Invalid” or “Doubtful”…?
Andrew brings up the 1988 letter from Archbishop Lefebvre to a Mr. Wilson, reproduced in these pages a few years ago (Recusant 50, p.16). We will quote it again, not only because Fr. Robinson was unable to deal with it properly, but also because it speaks for itself in all its simplicity. It reads:
“Very dear Mr. Wilson, thank you very much for your kind letter. I agree with your desire to re-ordain conditionally these priests, and I have done this reordination many times. All sacraments from the modernists bishops or priests are doubtful now. The changes are increasing and their intentions are no more [i.e. no longer] Catholic. We are in the time of great apostasy. […]”
This letter is so clear and straightforward that it ought not to surprise us that Fr. Robinson struggles to deal with it properly at all. In the end, he simply comments:
“This letter does not prove that Archbishop Lefebvre decided that he was going to universally conditionally ordain all [Novus Ordo] priests.”
Well no, but it does, at the very least, show that his position, and that of the SSPX, was that the “rule” was to conditionally ordain and the “exception,” those who did not require conditional ordination, were a small and ever-shrinking minority. By contrast, the SSPX of today appear to have exactly the opposite approach: to assume that the ordination is valid unless they happen to become aware of an obvious defect in the actual ceremony of priestly ordination itself. At one point Fr. Robinson even admits that:
“He [i.e. Lefebvre] did consider the new rites doubtful. Not invalid, but doubtful.”
But then, not long after, he confuses the issue by saying:
“Like, even in that letter, Archbishop Lefebvre says they’re doubtful. So if they’re doubtful, that means some of them are valid, right?”
Like, no, that’s not what it means. “Doubtful” means that although we can’t be sure, there’s a real possibility that it didn’t happen, so the sacrament (or in this case, the priest) must be avoided, and that the way to fix it is for the sacrament (in this case, the ordination) to be done again conditionally, so that one can be certain. Even if, for argument’s sake, some of those “doubtful” holy orders are in fact valid, as Fr. Robinson says, what use is that if you can’t know which ones? But this seems to be lost on Fr. Robinson: his approach throughout the entire interview is to talk terms of: “whether it’s valid or invalid” - which misses the point.
A doubtful sacrament might be valid, yes, but “might be” isn’t enough because when it comes to sacraments one must always take the pars tutior- play it safe, in other words. After the Wilson letter, Andrew brings up an extract from a sermon by the late Bishop Tissier de Mallerais which also ends up being dismissed far too flippantly and unconvincingly by Fr. Robinson. In a sermon given at the 2016 ordinations in Écône, Bishop Tissier said:
“We cannot, of course, accept this new sabotaged rite of ordination which poses doubts about the validity of many ordinations according to the new rite. … So this new rite of ordination is not Catholic. And so we will of course continue faithfully transmitting the real and valid priesthood – made valid by the traditional rite of ordination.”
Take note: Bishop Tissier clearly says that “many” of these new priests are doubtful. This is, as noted above, in contrast to the new SSPX policy. Fr. Robinson, however, merely remarks:
“He’s not saying ‘We think its invalid’. … So he’s not really saying anything different here from Archbishop Lefebvre and the position of the SSPX. … Again, this is not the position of the SSPX, that the new rite is invalid.”
Notice the dishonesty, the changing of terms. “That the new rite is invalid”? It doesn’t have to be invalid, it only has to be doubtful! Fr. Robinson continues:
“If people want to find quotations that will establish that sort of position, they have to find a quote that says the new rites are intrinsically invalid or all the ordinations in the new rites are invalid.”
Nonsense! Firstly, nobody is saying that, at least in our corner. Secondly, it only has to be doubtful, not invalid. In fact, to be alarmed at the SSPX’s new approach one doesn’t even have to regard all new rite ordinations as are doubtful, merely a sufficient number of them and on sufficiently diverse grounds (not just when wacky things happen during the actual ceremony itself) to begin to see conditional ordination as necessary.
“Investigation” means watching a video!
With this in mind, it is concerning to note that during this entire hour-long video the question of the new rite of episcopal consecration is never raised, never even acknowledged, never once even given a passing nod. And yet it ought to be central to the discussion, since only a bishop can ordain a priest and therefore a doubtful bishop can only ordain priests at best only doubtfully.
What other grounds for doubt might there be far beyond what happened on the day during the ceremony itself? Well, for instance: who was the bishop? If he was a man given to telling people that he didn’t believe in mediaeval superstitions, that no magic takes place, it’s all just a community leadership rite of passage (Novus Ordo bishops have been known to say such things!), then might that not affect his intention? What exactly does such a man think he is doing? What if his intention is above suspicion, but he was himself made a bishop using the 1968 new rite of episcopal consecration? Does not the very fact of the new rite of episcopal consecration being substantially different from the Traditional one (the Catholic one!) itself raise questions of its own? How about the priest - were his baptism and confirmation valid?
What about those public cases in recent years where a Novus Ordo priest discovered that his own baptism as a baby had been performed using a do-it-yourself, made-up formula of words? Even modern Rome ordered it to be done again, meaning that the ordination had to be done again too, because priestly ordination is invalid if the candidate is unbaptised. We could go on. But none of these things are even acknowledged, much less discussed by Fr. Robinson and Andrew. Why is that? It is as though they haven’t considered that when it comes to Novus Ordo ordinations there are some issues which aren’t visible on a video of the ceremony. Or perhaps they don’t want us to be aware of that. Fr. Robinson even admits at one point that the SSPX conditionally ordains far fewer ex–Novus Ordo priests today than used to be the case.
His facile justification for this is that in the old days, priests didn’t used to possess a video of their own ordination. Consider the implications: wouldn’t that mean that the SSPX (including Archbishop Lefebvre) conditionally ordained far too many men who ought never to have had it done? And that their only justification for doing so was that, not being able to see a video of the ceremony, they couldn’t be certain that the conciliar ritual had been followed correctly, and nothing more? Later on in the video, Fr. Robinson condemns this approach as “not safe.” As though to underline the fact that watching a video of the ceremony is the only “investigation” being done by today’s SSPX, Fr. Robinson offers Andrew this reflection:
“If you watch the video of the ordination and you see nothing wrong, then you shouldn’t conditionally ordain. And sometimes I say to people: if you came to me and said, ‘Please re-baptise me, I was baptised in the new rite,’ and you give me a video of your baptism and I look at it and I was like, there’s nothing wrong, then it would obviously be wrong for me to re-baptise you.”
Who can spot the fallacy here? The person performing the baptism does not himself need to have been baptised. Of course, it is fitting for a priest to do it, but it isn’t necessary as such. The sacrament of baptism can be performed validly by a anyone, a Muslim, a Jew or an atheist can do it, as Fr. Robinson himself says later in the video. The sacrament of Holy Orders, on the other hand, requires a bishop who in turn must himself have been validly ordained and consecrated by another real bishop, and so on, which is why the new rite of Episcopal Consecration will always be central to questions of doubtful sacraments. It should trouble everyone a great deal that the modern SSPX’s official spokesman on this question cannot see that obvious distinction, or alternately, that he should be deliberately seeking to hide it from his audience.
Anyone Who Disagrees With Me Is A Sedevacantist!
All of the above is in the first half of the video. The second half includes a lot of talk about other things, such as whether Archbishop Lefebvre was a sedevacantist, Traditional Catholics falling prey to bitterness and hatred and a discussion about Archbishop Thuc and the history of Palmar de Troya. Just how relevant this is in a video entitled: “Why the SSPX Doesn’t Always Conditionally Ordain” is unclear. The fairly obvious explanation is that this is just more guilt-by-association and “what-aboutism” - the same sort of dishonest ploy to which we have seen Fr. Robinson so often resort in his past discussion of “realist science,” in other words.
The attempt has worked on some, it seems. “Very grateful for you all addressing this.” reads one YouTube comment,
“Seems the gnostic tendency is creeping from the Sedevacanist [sic] to deny the reality of things and thus a continued doubt and uncertainty arises.”
Not everyone has been fooled, however. Another comment reads:
“Misleading title. It should say, ‘Why the SSPX Rarely Conditionally Ordains after Nearly Reconciling with Rome in 2012’ ”
And another asks:
“Would the SSPX have Traditional SSPX friendly Novus Ordo Bishops consecrate new Bishops for the SSPX?”
That is almost certainly what is really going on here. The answer, by the way, is surely a resounding “yes” hence the need for the sort of propaganda contained in this video: they are preparing everyone for the day when the SSPX asks permission for new bishops and modernist Rome insists on their own candidates, their own consecrators, if not their own rites.
Doctrine > Validity
There is one final thing which is troubling about this video, and here let us end on a familiar (in these pages at least!) note: validity is one thing, doctrine is another. Yes, validity matters, but doctrine matters more. Priests who come out of the Novus Ordo are often very badly formed. But don’t worry, the SSPX has a programme for their formation, which in the USA is run by…? Yes, Fr. Paul Robinson! That little admission is buried near the start of the interview: blink and you’ll miss it! So at the SSPX in America there will no doubt be ex–Novus Ordo priests not only saying the Traditional Mass with doubtful orders, but also telling people that the earth is billions of years old, that Genesis was “written for a primitive people,” that you should just go ahead and get the latest vaccine, that you must avoid conspiracy theories and be a good little obedient citizen of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr... and more besides.
Lest anyone doubt that valid holy orders is not enough, consider the fact that priests such as Fr. Robinson have holy orders which are beyond any doubt valid, and yet look at the result. The spirit of the New SSPX, so different from what it used to be pervades this entire video. There is a lot of talk, for instance, about how Bishop Fellay, Fr. Fullerton, the SSPX superiors in general have “the grace of state” to decide things - a seriously flawed argument which will be familiar to anyone who lived through the 2012 SSPX crisis. The faithful are told “you’re not trained in this” and that instead of concerning themselves, they “should just pursue peace of soul” – yes, those are exact quotes.
“It’s just not the position of the faithful to tell us what to do in that case. Because we’re the ones who have to be responsible for that, just as we have to be responsible for what we say in the confessional of what we say from the pulpit and how we guide the faithful. So it’s just, I guess, one of the purposes here is to say: this is our position and you can agree with it or not agree with it but that’s what it is. So if you come to our chapels, it’s just expected that you’re going to accept the priests that we have say public Mass and trust that we’re making good decisions.”
I agree with Fr. Robinson here, although not in a way with which he would be happy. He is right in that you do need to decide whether or not you trust the SSPX as an institution, and that if the answer is “no” then you should stop going there. This interview is yet one more serious piece of evidence (the “x+1”) for why one cannot trust them and why one ought no longer to go there. As he says, if you can’t trust them on the question of Novus Ordo Holy Orders (or evolutionary cosmology, covid vaccines, and so much more besides…), how far can you really trust their advice in the confessional, their sermons, their guidance on retreats, etc? It is a long
established fact, to take just one example, that in America, in Germany and elsewhere, their advice to newly-weds is to avoid having too many children, “It’s not a race!” and so forth. For once Fr. Robinson is quite right: you can’t just pick and choose, you either trust the SSPX or you don’t. As he himself comments,
“I do understand there’s a lack of trust today. The Church has lost credibility, priests have lost credibility…”
Although spoken about the conciliar church (of course, he himself never actually uses that term because, like the institution which he represents, it is a distinction which he doesn’t recognise), these words apply to the modern SSPX. What he and others ought to be asking is why the SSPX has lost credibility, how that has happened and what the implications might be. Indeed, ironically, if there is one thing which represents in stark relief the difference between the SSPX before and after its Rome-friendly makeover, it is this attitude. The old SSPX used to tell the faithful: You need to read, to study, don’t just take our word for it, read this book, look at this interview, do your homework, see for yourselves!
By contrast, the new SSPX tells them: Who do you think you are? You’re just a layman! Go back to sleep! Leave this to us, we’re the experts, you wouldn’t understand, don’t worry you’re pretty little head about it! Let us close with a comment from Andrew which we think sums it up nicely.
“You have to trust. There’s something to be said for just accepting that sometimes things are OK. … Sometimes we just have to be able to trust that Christ is watching over the Church still.”
Alright then - *yawn* - I must have just imagined the crisis in the Church, the worst crisis in human history which is still getting worse every day. Goodnight everyone!
Further Reading:
General:
- “Validity of the Sacraments Reformed by Paul VI” - the Avrillé Dominicans - https://dominicansavrille.us/validity-of...y-paul-vi/ (https://dominicansavrille.us/validity-of-the-sacraments-reformed-by-paul-vi/)
- “The Order of Mechisadech: Ch.7 The New Catholic Rite of Ordination” - Michael Davies - https://www.catholictradition.org/Euchar...h-chp7.htm (https://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/melchisedech-chp7.htm)
- “Sacramentum Ordinis” - Pius XII - https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12sacrao.htm (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12sacrao.htm)
- “Apostolicae Curae” - Leo XIII - https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13curae.htm (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13curae.htm)
Novus Ordo Bishops - Two Opposing Views:
- “Why the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is Valid” - Fr. Pierre-Marie OP, The Angelus, Jan. 2006 - https://isidore.co/misc/Res%20pro%20Deo/...06_jan.pdf (https://isidore.co/misc/Res pro Deo/Pope St. Pius X &⁄or SSPX/The Angelus/PDFs/394_2006_jan.pdf)
- “Absolutely Null and Utterly Void: The 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration” - Fr. Anthony Cekada - https://archive.org/details/new-ep-cons-art-pdf-2/ (https://archive.org/details/new-ep-cons-art-pdf-2/)
Novus Ordo Holy Orders: Are they Doubtful and Why?
“All agree that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible signs which produce invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they produce and produce the grace which they signify. Now the effects which must be produced and hence also signified by Sacred Ordination to the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy, namely power and grace, in all the rites of various times and places in the universal Church, are found to be sufficiently signified by the imposition of hands and the words which determine it. […]
Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects – namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit – and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense. ”
- Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, 1947
“But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly ordination namely, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Order of Priesthood (sacerdotium) or its grace and power … This form had, indeed, afterwards added to it the words “for the office and work of a priest,” etc.; but this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate.”
- Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 1896
We all learn in catechism that a sacrament is “an outward sign of inward grace” but what does that mean in practice? It means that the entire ceremony and in particular the essential form - the words which make the sacrament happen and without which no sacrament can take place - must signify outwardly what is invisibly taking place. The form: “I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” clearly signifies that a baptism is taking place. On hearing those words, an ignorant pagan, stumbling into a church half-way through a strange ceremony, could, in theory, understand that a baptism is taking place.
The same is true of the sacrament of Holy Orders. The words can be expected to describe, or represent outwardly, what is inwardly taking place in that sacrament. So what, precisely, is taking place at the consecration of a bishop? The priest is being given the episcopacy, that is, the fullness of the priesthood. He may or may not be going to “govern” - that would signify his being appointed to a diocese and given ordinary jurisdiction - but even if he is an auxiliary bishop and has no jurisdiction, he will still exercise the fullness of the ministry of a priest.
A sacramental form is valid because the words clearly signify what is taking place; therefore, to the extent that they fail to signify it, its validity is put in doubt. That is why the Church decided (and Leo XIII repeated the decision) that Anglican holy orders are invalid. The essential form used by the Anglicans for a hundred years had said only “Receive the Holy Ghost” which is a true but inadequate description of what is happening at an ordination: it doesn’t sufficiently signify what is taking place because there is no mention of the priesthood.
Essential Form of Priestly Ordination:
(http://]https://i.postimg.cc/ZnSXZnkB/Ordination.png)
What does this signify? In both cases, a man is being given “the dignity of the priesthood,” an “office which comes from” God and is the next one down from that of a bishop.
Essential Form of Episcopal Consecration:
(http://]https://i.postimg.cc/nh2mGPV6/Episcopal.png)
What does this signify? In the traditional form a “priest” being given “the fullness of thy ministry” which is the definition of a bishop. In the Novus Ordo form a “candidate” is being given “power” which is “the governing spirit” given to the apostles. Is that the same as the fullness of the priesthood, i.e. the episcopacy, or might it conceivably be something distinct?