No valid bishops mean that there is no valid pope, nor has there been one since 1958 when Pope Pius XII went to his Eternal Reward - the sixtieth anniversary of which is coming in 2 and a half months. October 9th, 1958.

The prospect of a six-decade-long interregnum is terrifying because it means that we have gone six decades without ordinary jurisdiction in the Latin Church. No Pope, no bishops, no priests.

I'm personally unsure because of the length of time. In 2018, likely, no. But in 1978 or 1988 when a lot of these bishops, who after the Council turned out to be heretics, still exercised public ministry? And the post-Vatican II establishment is still somewhat new?

Entirely plausible.

.
Invalid episcopal consecrations, taken alone, would only impact the status Ratzinger & Bergoglio vis a vis the papacy.  Not all the way back to 1958, right?
I don’t understand your last paragraph.  Are you saying new rite concecrations were more likely invalid in the seventies and eighties than now?

.
Invalid episcopal consecrations, taken alone, would only impact the status Ratzinger & Bergoglio vis a vis the papacy.  Not all the way back to 1958, right?
I don’t understand your last paragraph.  Are you saying new rite concecrations were more likely invalid in the seventies and eighties than now?

Because it was closer to the time of the Council when a lot of them still publicly exercised their ministry - only one or two decades after when the post-Council heresy was at its worst. And many of them were either complete pederasts, heretics or both.

There would still be enough time for someone to think that maybe this would be resolved because they were still alive and we'd return to a semblance of normalcy.

But today, I would have a lot of doubts because it's been 50 years, most of them are retired and/or dead and the New Rite has not been abandoned. 

I believe that the new rites are doubtful. Quite different from invalid. For instance a conditional sacrament is given because the previously given sacrament is doubtful, not invalid per se, it seeks to remove doubt and give the sacrament were it not given. Myself, I would not receive a sacrament from a priest or bishop who is not conditionally ordained or consecrated because doubt exists. 

Welcome back, OHCA  

.
Thank you.  I’m happy to be back.

Who knows?  Maybe +Fellay told him to stop?  

Why does the one Bishop (either [de Galarreta] or Tissier) in the sspx with very good theology training (who has been part of the rome negotiations, and who is "pro deal") argue that the new consecrations/ordinations are VERY doubtful....while +W, who is "anti deal" argues that the ordinations/consecrations are probably valid, with little doubt?

Bizzare-o world we live in.  Nobody is consistent in their thinking, even trad clerics.  Hate to say it, but don't blindly follow clerics or you'll be in danger.  "Watch and pray, lest ye enter into temptation."

.
You did it again. His name is Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, or +de Galarreta. One "l" and two "r". He's Spanish so double "ll" would be a different letter, making a "y" sound. And Tissier is his middle name, which is actually disrespectful of a cleric unless he's a Franciscan, or a few other orders. Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, or Bishop de Mallerais is more proper than Bishop Tissier.
.
Regarding the consecrations, I have found there is some disinformation going around, promoted by CMRI, among others, which says the bishop consecration form that was introduced in 1968 is doubtful. Reliable sources have assured me that is not the case. The doubt comes from the 1969 priestly ordination form, not the 1968 episcopal consecration form, and they say you can easily tell by comparing the words side by side for each, that the new episcopal consecration form is superior to the old one, whereas the new priestly ordination form is inferior to the old one. The Ottaviani Intervention (September, 1969) had something to do with a delay in the Novus Ordo and new priests' ordination form being implemented. The delay was July 1969 to after December 1969. Argentina bishops had a question they asked Rome by letter in July and Rome did not answer until after December, therefore Argentina continued to use the old form during the interim.
.
That's the way I've been informed. Not saying that I believe it, but I'm not pretending to be a judge because I'm not qualified to judge this. As I understand it, the SSPX has always used the old episcopal form (if it was good enough before 1968, why change it) and the old priestly ordination form (same reason, but 1969). But now with their +Fellayite aggiornamento and rapprochement policy, who knows, maybe they'll start using the new (1969) priestly ordination form in Virginia as a sign of their good will toward Newrome!! But as for episcopal consecrations, we shouldn't have to wonder because the NeoSSPX isn't going to do any new bishops -- that would be a major offense against NewRome and they're not about to rock the barque of Peter! HAHAHAHA
.

The question is rather confusing as to why it needs to be asked. By definition a NO bishop is valid in his own domain. In any other he is not valid. He cannot serve two masters .....but why would he want to?

Close to 50/50