The March-2023 edition of The Courrier of Rome passed without mention on this forum, but it shouldn't have, because therein one would have found the SSPX preparing the terrain for the greater use of +Huonder, by preemptively eliminating objections to the validity of sacraments confected by bishops themselves consecrated in the new rite of episcopal consecration.

See, for example, the article titled "Tous Douteux?" (i.e., "All Doubtful?") by Fr. Gleize, here: https://laportelatine.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/CDR-Mars-2023-digital.pdf

The introduction to this article will reveal its intent:

"Among other consequences, the Motu proprio Traditionis custodes may have prompted, here and there, members of the clergy of the of the official (or so-called "conciliar") Church to turn to the Society of Saint Pius X. In some cases, priests (and even a bishop, in the person of the Ordinary emeritus of Chur, Mgr Vitus Huonder) have even decided to offer their cooperation the apostolate of the Society. [Umm, no, he was ordered there by Francis -SJ]

2. Such a situation is not without its difficulties, the main one being that possible doubt. And this possibility is twofold. The possibility of doubt on the validity of the ordination of these priests. There is also the possibility of doubt about the intention with which these priests have administered the sacraments, at least up to now.  The difficulty arises when priests offer cooperation, who turn to the Fraternity. But in principle, this difficulty cannot fail not arise in relation to all members of the of the official Church hierarchy, because of the new direction taken [since] the Second Vatican Council. A real difficulty for the founder of the Society of St. Pius X, if we are to go by what he said during his homily delivered on June 30, 1988 at Ecône, during his episcopal consecration:

'All these seminarians who are here present, if tomorrow the Good Lord calls me back - and it will undoubtedly be without delay - well, these seminarians, from whom will they receive the sacrament of Holy Orders? From the bishops, whose sacraments are all dubious, because we don't know exactly what their intentions are? This is not possible.'"

The first thing to be noted in the article is that it is incomplete, because nowhere in it does Fr. Gleize treat of the doubts inherent in the form of the new rite of episcopal consecration (doubts which have prompted some SSPX clergy and faithful to seek holy oils consecrated by certainly validly consecrated bishops, such as +Faure, or to turn to Econe, in order to avoid those questionable oild consecrated (?) by +Huonder).  Fr. Gleize has limited the doubts merely to intention, and then sets about addressing them.

Fr. Gleize continues:

"The fundamental question at the root at the root of this double difficulty, is that of the intention required for the validity of the sacraments. Indeed, the validity of the sacraments essentially [rests] on three factors: matter, form, and the minister's intention. As soon as the matter and form are assured, the only element that can still be lacking and render invalid the sacrament is the intention of the minister."

Au contraire, dear Fr. Gleize: The fundamental question at the root of doubts concerning sacramental validity and Msgr. Huonder is whether he is a bishop at all, due to ambiguities in the form of the new rite of episcopal consecration.  Fr. Gleize does not want to enter into that conversation, but he must, for as his brother priest, Fr. de Lacoste has discussed in his own article in the very same edition of Courrier de Rome, sacramental validity requires in addition to the valid form, matter, and intention a valid minister.

But having completely avoided this discussion, Fr. Gleize thinks to have prepared the terrain for the acceptance of holy oils consecrated by this bishop (or other conciliar clergy ministering to various SSPX apostolates, such as Ecclesia Dei priests servicing SSPX chapels in Africa?), of whose intentions we are no longer to have any doubt (hence, the Huonder video series which followed, to assure us of his traditionalism).  Yet, that some within the SSPX itself have not missed this omission, and retained doubts about the validity of Huonder's episcopal consecration, is demonstrated by their seeking certainly validly consecrated holy oils from +Faure or Econe.

What the article does suggest by this omission, is that in the SSPX, the conversation regarding the validity of the form of episcopal consecration is no longer on the table.  

But the trial balloon of the Huonder experiment did reveal a few internal doubters.  Perhaps Rome will require another round of purges?

Au contraire, dear Fr. Gleize: The fundamental question at the root of doubts concerning sacramental validity and Msgr. Huonder is whether he is a bishop at all, due to ambiguities in the form of the new rite of episcopal consecration.  Fr. Gleize does not want to enter into that conversation, but he must, for as his brother priest, Fr. de Lacoste has discussed in his own article in the very same edition of Courrier de Rome, sacramental validity requires in addition to the valid form, matter, and intention a valid minister.

.

Yes, obviously he is going to ignore the argument that he doesn't have an answer for.

It just blows my mind that the SSPX considers a sacramental form of Holy Orders written by modernists to be self-evidently valid.

A bit of Trad 101 --

One of the foundational principles that Trads have held to SINCE THE BEGINNING is the following:

When you have a doubtful Mass/priest and a certainly valid one, you are OBLIGATED to go with the more certain one.
And, the Novus Ordo (and new ordination) are at least SUSPECT/dangerous/doubtful.

Now I'll admit that some Trads today are more "sure than they ought to be" when it comes to the validity of the New Rite of Ordination -- or the Novus Ordo Missae for that matter. But that is beside the point.

The FACT is that these things are at least DOUBTFUL, and there is a Catholic principle that one is not even ALLOWED to go with a doubtful path when a certain path exists. That goes for the liquid used at Baptism, your Mass, your priest, and everything else. We must always choose the more certain.

TL;DR (short version): Catholic morality does not permit us to be risk-takers when it comes to what Mass we will attend, or other important matters touching on our Faith and our salvation. On the contrary, we are commanded to be extremely risk-averse and conservative -- taking the safest path.

That is the state of the SSPX today. The girdling has been done 100%. The organization is fully doomed. Just a matter of time before all the chapels/policies/etc. fully reflect the fundamental shift that HAS TAKEN PLACE (past tense).

I can attest to the truth of this statement. The new "SSPX" chapel in Front Royal is unrecognizable as a Society chapel besides the priests being member of the SSPX.  It is the most chaotic hot mess I have encountered since leaving the Novus Ordo. Women without veils, immodesty in dress and BEHAVIOR, lack of decorum, nursing and changing babies in the pews, talking, cell phones, screaming bratty children that do not get taken out, congregation singing at inappropriate times...the list goes on.  It is truly a sad state of affairs and could be corrected and the people could be taught by the priests, but they are not, and that is what is so heartbreaking. I'm not sure why the situation has been allowed to continue but I can only deduce that it is because these young SSPX priests are being told to not say anything for fear of offending the newbies.  And, it is not rare that novus ordo "priests" are seen at the chapel, which no one blinks at but rather thinks is wonderful.  There is an older retired diocesan priest who was also at the ordinations and did the prayer over the new ordinands.

If the new SSPX has no problem with the Novus Ordo priests, and is now including them in their ceremonies, it sure does make their supplied jurisdiction look like a farce.  

The FACT is that these things are at least DOUBTFUL, and there is a Catholic principle that one is not even ALLOWED to go with a doubtful path when a certain path exists. That goes for the liquid used at Baptism, your Mass, your priest, and everything else. We must always choose the more certain.

It's my understanding that one can't approach doubtful Sacraments even if a certain path does NOT exist ... except in danger of death, but someone can correct me if I'm wrong.  There's some debate, of course, about whether there's positive or negative doubt about various scenarios.

One wonders how Fr. Johnson will now fare after stating from the pulpit that the Bogus Ordo rite of Ordination is not valid.  Will it even raise any eyebrows?

https://t.co/Pey7UWphut?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Eembeddedtimeline%7Ctwterm%5Escreen-name%3ANovusOrdoWatch%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c14

Dear MiracleOfTheSun,
THANK YOU!!  Please pray that Fr. Johnson continues to speak the truth..

I remember when the 2012 Chapter happened and everyone was hoping/expecting Fr. Johnson would go to the 'hard line' side but that didn't quite happen.  Saying something like this though, in today's SSPX climate, is almost treasonous.  Nice work, Fr. Johnson!  Praying for him.

"Among other consequences, the Motu proprio Traditionis custodes may have prompted, here and there, members of the clergy of the of the official (or so-called "conciliar") Church to turn to the Society of Saint Pius X. In some cases, priests (and even a bishop, in the person of the Ordinary emeritus of Chur, Mgr Vitus Huonder) have even decided to offer their cooperation the apostolate of the Society. [Umm, no, he was ordered there by Francis -SJ]

Where is the source to prove Pope France ordered him there? I don't doubt it, I just can't find it, and it should be added to the wikipedia page on Huonder.

Just like if you girdle a tree (cut completely around the bark), the tree is dead. At least it's a POINT OF NO RETURN. The tree will continue to LOOK alive for a while: it will have soft, supple branches and leaves for months later, but no more sap can flow above the girdling point, where the cut was made. So it's "set in stone" or a done-deed that the tree is dead. It's just a matter of time before the death FULLY manifests itself.

With a chicken, death takes minutes after the "point of no return" (e.g., removing its head). With a tree, it takes months. The SSPX might take years (Rome wasn't built in a day -- and neither was it destroyed in a day!)

That is the state of the SSPX today. The girdling has been done 100%. The organization is fully doomed. Just a matter of time before all the chapels/policies/etc. fully reflect the fundamental shift that HAS TAKEN PLACE (past tense).

Many Trees including the Giant Redwoods are liable to grow back from the roots and stump. It depends on what kind of a tree the SSPX is.

A bit of Trad 101 --

One of the foundational principles that Trads have held to SINCE THE BEGINNING is the following:

When you have a doubtful Mass/priest and a certainly valid one, you are OBLIGATED to go with the more certain one.
And, the Novus Ordo (and new ordination) are at least SUSPECT/dangerous/doubtful.

Now I'll admit that some Trads today are more "sure than they ought to be" when it comes to the validity of the New Rite of Ordination -- or the Novus Ordo Missae for that matter. But that is beside the point.

The FACT is that these things are at least DOUBTFUL, and there is a Catholic principle that one is not even ALLOWED to go with a doubtful path when a certain path exists. That goes for the liquid used at Baptism, your Mass, your priest, and everything else. We must always choose the more certain.

TL;DR (short version): Catholic morality does not permit us to be risk-takers when it comes to what Mass we will attend, or other important matters touching on our Faith and our salvation. On the contrary, we are commanded to be extremely risk-averse and conservative -- taking the safest path.

It's my understanding that one can't approach doubtful Sacraments even if a certain path does NOT exist ... except in danger of death, but someone can correct me if I'm wrong.  There's some debate, of course, about whether there's positive or negative doubt about various scenarios.

How does this relate to the Fr Stark and other supposed not conditionally ordained NO convert priests working in the SSPX when ABL was alive?