CathInfo.com

And didn't Archbishop Lefebvre once say that it was a sin to re-ordain a priest, unless there was doubt as to the validity of the ordination? I can't recall where I read this, but I'm sure he said something to that effect.

Yes, His Excellency saw no problem with the rites, only with the intention of the ministers. A mistake, in my opinion.

And didn't Archbishop Lefebvre once say that it was a sin to re-ordain a priest, unless there was doubt as to the validity of the ordination? I can't recall where I read this, but I'm sure he said something to that effect.

Yes, it is one of the reasons that +ABL did not automatically conditionally ordain, plus back then, there were still valid bishops even if they ordained the new way.  

Below is Trent's catechism speaking of Conditional Baptism, the SSPX still applies this to all 3 of the sacraments that cannot be repeated. Personally, I think they were correct in initially presuming validity of ordinations in the 70s and 80s, possibly a little later, but not these days. 

"In this connection, however, there are some matters, in which, to the very great injury of the Sacrament, abuses are of almost daily occurrence, and which therefore demand the diligent attention of pastors. For there are not wanting those who think that no sin is committed if they indiscriminately administer conditional Baptism...

...This certainly they cannot do without sacrilege and without incurring what theologians call an irregularity. According to the authority of Pope Alexander the conditional form of Baptism is to be used only when after due inquiry doubts are entertained as to the validity of the previous Baptism. In no other case is it ever lawful to administer Baptism a second time, even conditionally."

Thanks, Stubborn. I wonder if +ABL ever changed the actual policy of the SSPX before he died? I don't think he did, but I could be wrong.

(...)  I don't blame the SSPX, or even those in the Resistance, for not automatically re-ordaining a Novus Ordo priest. I think the SSPX still investigates every situation individually, if I'm not mistaken.

I agree with many of the replies about conditional re-ordinations. I would like to summarize them a bit:

1- The Council of Trent and moral Theology warn it would be a mortal sin to re-confer the three "non-renewable" sacraments (Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Orders) without a serious analysis and subsequent doubt about them having been conferred validly.

2- Abp Lefebvre was following this guideline and investigated before to re-confer these sacraments. And people trusted his judgment.

3- I don't recall having seen anywhere a docuмent that would be a policy of Abp Lefebvre on this question. So, it is difficult to say whether of not the Neo-SSPX has changed or abandoned such policy.

Now, some more considerations, with a true life example of a NO bishop, and a practical conclusion:

1- Although the NO rite of Priestly Ordinations has removed many expressive symbolical parts of the old rite, which were meant to better understand the role of the Priest, it has kept the Matter (imposition of Hands) and the Form (Preface) intact, except for one non-essential word in the Preface. Therefore, the New Rite, although bastardized, is valid Per Se. (However, the ceremonies they took out from the Old Rite, obscure the understanding of what a Priest truly is. The same happened with the New Mass, which now resembles a Protestant Commemorative Meal).

2- The NO rite of Episcopal Consecration has the same Matter as the Old one, but the Form has changed radically. There are arguments PRO and CON among traditional theologians about its Per Se validity. Attila Sinque Guimares wrote a book against validity, and Bp Tissier de Mallerais agreed with him, and asked that Bp Lazo (Philippines), who had come back to Tradition, may not be allowed to confirm or ordain. The Avrillé Dominicans, a few years ago, after they had joined the Resistance, have published an article in favor of a Per Se validity of the new Form. Bp Williamson wrote that the new Form was indeed lacking a key element ("power to govern"), but the whole context of the ceremony supplied for the lack of clarity of the new Form. As for the Neo-SSPX, the way they dealt with Bp Huonder show they believe the new Form to be valid Per Se. Incidentally, Fr. Girouard was told Bp Tissier always refused to use the Huonder Holy Oils when performing a rite that needed them. As we can see, there is no cohesive position among Traditional Theologians on the subject. And I do not recall Abp Lefebvre taking an official, or even informal, position specifically about this New Form of the NO Rite of Consecration of Bishops..

3- What everybody agreed about was the danger of the lack of proper intention on the part of NO bishops consecrating other bishops, or ordaining Priests. Fr. Girouard wrote an article in the Canadian District Magazine "Convictions" around 2006, where he gives the example of Abp. Weisgerber (Winnipeg), who said in a sermon of Ordination of new priests: "There is no essential difference between priests and the laity. We have all received the Priesthood of the Faithful at Baptism. The reason we select some men to become Priests, is to give them authority over a fraction of the Faithful, like a Parish. This authority is given to someone as a means to foster unity in the group over which he is in charge." (Or words to that effect). In Fr. Girouard's opinion, as expressed in his article, he could not believe Abp Weisgerber could have had a valid intention in ordaining these men.

4- However, Theology teaches that, even if the Minister has the wrong belief about the Sacrament he confers, it would be sufficient for validity if he at least has the intention of "doing what the Church does in such a rite". The example given is that of Baptism. If a Jew, or a Pagan, (in case of necessity), is the only one who can baptize a dying person at his/her request, it would be valid if he uses the Matter and the Form properly, and if he has at least the intention to perform what the Church does. Obviously the Jew or the Pagan does not believe in Baptism. But if you are on a movie set and your role makes you play the part of a Priest who baptizes a child (like in the Godfather movie), even if, as a person, you are Catholic and believe in the Sacrament, as an actor playing a role you have no intention of truly baptizing a child. You will use the valid Matter and Form in the movie, but you will not have the required intention. The baptism will not really take place, except as a make-believe.

5- Now a new question arises about the "intention to do what the Church does": Does the Conciliar Church have an intention that is contrary to the intention of the Catholic Church? In other words, when a NO bishop performs an ordination or consecration, does he have the intention of doing "what the Catholic Church does", or "what the Conciliar Church does"? Do the two Churches have different beliefs and intentions? In light of the example of Abp Weisgerber mentioned above, this is a legitimate question. This Archbishop had put the transcript of his sermon on the official website of the Winnipeg Archdiocese, and was never rebuked by Rome. We can believe that his heretical idea was taught him at the Seminary, and probably reinforced by the reading of bona fide Conciliar theologians. This whole question requires a thorough investigation of what kind of theology was and is being taught in the Conciliar Church Seminaries. Was his case an exception, or were other bishops trained in the same way? If Abp Weisgerber believed a Priestly ordination only gave a power of authority, and if he thought this was what the Church (Conciliar) believed and intended to do by the Rite, then he did not have the valid intention of doing what the Church (Catholic) does, and the Priests he ordained, and the bishops he consecrated, are still laymen. Given the omission of the most symbolical gestures, and the most theologically significant prayers, that were in the Old Rites of Ordination and of the Mass (and all other NO rites), we can seriously doubt the Conciliar Church sacramental intentions are the same as those of the Catholic Church.

6- Therefore, when the Neo-SSPX leadership, and the Resistance bishops, have to decide on whether or not they should conditionally re-ordain a Priest or a Bishop, the due diligence they have to observe is, in most cases, something extremely difficult to do. The old generation of bishops consecrated in the Old Rite has died off around the same time as Abp Lefebvre (1991) did. We could say they were all dead or retired by the year 2000. That makes it more difficult to find out what was the real intention of the bishop who consecrated the bishop who ordained the NO priest who comes to Tradition today. There are so many layers we need to investigate! It is not impossible but, given the limited resources and time available for such inquiries, it is to fear the investigations may not be as thorough as desirable.

7- CONCLUSION:
A) Given that Theologians of Tradition do not all agree about the validity or not of the New Form of Episcopal Consecration;
B) And given the question about whether the Conciliar Church sacramental intentions, as taught in Modern Seminaries, and as displayed in the changes in the Rites of Mass and Ordination, are different or not from those of the Catholic Church;
C) And given this creates a great difficulty in achieving a thorough examination of the intentions of the NO Ministers involved at each step of the process leading to the ordination of such and such NO priest or bishop coming to Tradition;
D) And given the need of the faithful to receive non doubtful sacraments, and to know it with clarity;
E) It seems the rules enacted by the Council of Trent about conditional re-conferring of specific sacraments, are impractical in this great, and unforeseen, Crisis of the Church, and it therefore seems preferable to make a rule of conditionally re-conferring Confirmation, or Ordination, or Episcopal Consecration when a NO faithful, or Priest, or Bishop, comes to Tradition. We need, as a movement, to assuage the fears of invalidity of our people and of those who want to come to us.