CathInfo.com

In the mid-1990s when Fr. Morgan was superior in the Philippines, Mgr Lazo was allowed to function as a bishop, doing confirmations, and partaking of ordinations in Econe as a a bishop. The crux of the matter is whether or not praxis has changed.

+Lazo publicly rejected Roman modernism, and modernist Rome, whereas +Huonder was sent by modernist Rome to help reintegrate the SSPX into modernist Rome.

The two contrast sharply.

As regards Fr. Morgan allowing +Lazo to “partake of ordinations,” what exactly does this mean?  If you are suggesting +Lazo ordained SSPX priests, please supply the proof.  Were it true, which I very much doubt, those priests would be under the same cloud as all conciliar ordained priests.

As far as +Huonder performing confirmation, it does not resolve doubts about the validity of his consecration (per +Tissier’s letter expressing them, and acknowledging even a simple priest can perform them in necessity), which is yet another difference between the two: Hounder was ordained in the new rite; +Lazo in the old (ie., Huonder’s confirmations would remain doubtful, where +Lazo’s would not).

Neither does any of your post dispel doubts regarding the oils, which can only be consecrated by a bishop.

Finally, one must be allowed to wonder: If +Lazo had lived in the 2010’s, and said the same things of modernist Rome he said in the late ‘90’s, would the Society still have collaborated with him? Given the persona non grata posture they have taken toward +Vigano, one must be allowed to doubt it.

+Lazo publicly rejected Roman modernism, and modernist Rome, whereas +Huonder was sent by modernist Rome to help reintegrate the SSPX into modernist Rome.

The two contrast sharply.

As regards Fr. Morgan allowing +Lazo to “partake of ordinations,” what exactly does this mean?  If you are suggesting +Lazo ordained SSPX priests, please supply the proof.  Were it true, which I very much doubt, those priests would be under the same cloud as all conciliar ordained priests.

As far as +Huonder performing confirmation, it does not resolve doubts about the validity of his consecration (per +Tissier’s letter expressing them, and acknowledging even a simple priest can perform them in necessity), which is yet another difference between the two: Hounder was ordained in the new rite; +Lazo in the old (ie., Huonder’s confirmations would remain doubtful, where +Lazo’s would not).

Neither does any of your post dispel doubts regarding the oils, which can only be consecrated by a bishop.

Finally, one must be allowed to wonder: If +Lazo had lived in the 2010’s, and said the same things of modernist Rome he said in the late ‘90’s, would the Society still have collaborated with him? Given the persona non grata posture they have taken toward +Vigano, one must be allowed to doubt it.

True, Bishop Lazo did repudiate vatican 2 and the new mass, but he was still consecrated a bishop in the new rite; I don't think confirmations would be valid if a bishop is doubtfully consecrated, but validly ordained as a priest. This does open the question about the episcopacy; why is it that when a priest is given the delegation by his bishop to confirm, it's valid, but when he isn't given a delegation it's invalid? On the other hand, eastern rite priests have always been able to validly confirm.

There would be no doubt regarding the validity of confirmations administered by a certainly validly ordained priest who received delegation from his bishop.

The salient point here is that the SSPX didn’t use +Lazo in such a capacity which would engender doubts, in light of his consecration in the new rite (as it is now using +Huonder).

Did New Rite Bishop Lazo ordain priests? If so, there certainly would be doubts as to the validity of those priests.  And given this most recent news, how would we ever know for sure?