This popped into my feed somehow. Familiar with the subject and interested to hear the opinion expressed, I have to say that those guys were fair and balanced. They've been known to go out in left field a time or two (or ten). I think they even subscribe to the Siri theory and offer compelling evidence that something is there to uncover, but here they really just left it plainly out there and offer a few interesting facts for those that are not familiar with the case raised against the validity of Lefebvre or Thuc line bishops. Both valid- end of story. No positive doubt ever existed.

This popped into my feed somehow. Familiar with the subject and interested to hear the opinion expressed, I have to say that those guys were fair and balanced. They've been known to go out in left field a time or two (or ten). I think they even subscribe to the Siri theory and offer compelling evidence that something is there to uncover, but here they really just left it plainly out there and offer a few interesting facts for those that are not familiar with the case raised against the validity of Lefebvre or Thuc line bishops. Both valid- end of story. No positive doubt ever existed.

This may help to explain it to you:
https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/the-sacramental-intention-which-is-needed-for-valid-sacraments.html

OK, I know that Wikipedia is not the most reliable source of information but I was able to learn the names of Abp. Lefebvre's two co-consecrators: Alfred-Jean-Félix Ancel, Jean-Baptiste Victor Fauret. So, even if Card. Liénart withed his intention, he still performed the correct form and matter and most likely one of the two co-consecrators had the  right intention. In my opinion, Apb. Lefebvre always was a true Catholic priest and a true Catholic Bishop. May his soul rest in peace.

Yes, but Lienart ordained +Lefebvre to the priesthood on his own, and if +Lefebvre wasn't a valid priest, it's doubtful that he could be validly consecrated a bishop.

Nevertheless, there's no doubt whatsoever about his validity.

Yes, but Lienart ordained +Lefebvre to the priesthood on his own, and if +Lefebvre wasn't a valid priest, it's doubtful that he could be validly consecrated a bishop.

Nevertheless, there's no doubt whatsoever about his validity.

Matter, form, and intent are all that are needed.
As long as the matter and form are done correctly, the Church assumes proper intent on both the bishop and ordinand unless one or the other makes a clear pronouncement otherwise.

Thank you for pointing out the ordination fact, Ladislaus. I learned something today. 

This may help to explain it to you:
https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/the-sacramental-intention-which-is-needed-for-valid-sacraments.html

Probably the lack of question marks in my post is a good sign that I’m not asking you to explain anything to me. I’ve looked into the matter quite a bit and came to the same conclusion as Ladislaus years ago. 

Some people say that a man could be consecrated a bishop without being a priest first, but this is considered objectively doubtful.

Seen in this linked article: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/francis-appointed-cardinal-pope-could-name-a-woman-cardinal
Cardinal Tobin’s Case for Women Cardinals 
When asked by the NYT, “So will we see women cardinals soon?” Cardinal Tobin delivered perhaps his biggest stunner, “I don’t believe that there’s a compelling theological reason why the pope couldn’t name a woman cardinal.”
************************************************************************
Ha, ain't no surprise who made Tobin a cardinal!

Now, it is true that Cardinals could be (and have been) laymen ... and don't have to be bishops or priests or clerics.  But women?  And I don't think that lay Cardinals can vote in conclaves.

I recall a lay cardinal being elected pope.  If such lay cardinal can be elected, it seems reasonable to think that such a lay cardinal can vote.