It's really poor form for you blighters to be chiming in on this thread with your anti-Archbishop Lefebvre positions.
This thread is about the SSPX and the SSPX Resistance.
The Archbishop did study the new rite of priestly ordination and held that it was unequivocally valid. And as you say, he was a theologian, and he was not ignorant.
If you choose to follow another, good luck!

It's really poor form for you blighters to be chiming in on this thread with your anti-Archbishop Lefebvre positions.
This thread is about the SSPX and the SSPX Resistance.
The Archbishop did study the new rite of priestly ordination and held that it was unequivocally valid. And as you say, he was a theologian, and he was not ignorant.
If you choose to follow another, good luck!

If it was unequivocally valid, why did he perform conditional ordinations?

If he did a study on the rites, he did not publish this study.

If his study is in the same line as the studies that the SSPX published decades after his death, I am sorry, but they are not convincing.

I don't get it. We can criticise Pius XII, Pius XI, Benedict XV and all the post Vatican Popes (?), but not Abp. Lefebvre. It makes no sense for the person on the lower rank be immune to critics while his superiors are not.

Indiana has almost zero regular traditional catholic presence other than the questionable SSPX chapel headed by a younger priest, yet there are very large and popular pockets of Catholics here... it's very unfortunate

There's three sspx chapels in Indiana that I'm aware of.
I attend the Kingsford Heights chapel.  There is one in Fort Wayne and one in the Indianapolis area.

Agreed Giovanni, if he concluded it was valid, then why the conditional ordinations??

And you have hit the nail on the head: for some people in the Resistance, the Archbishop was a saint, his mother a stigmatist, and we cannot question ANYTHING he said or did. This is totally irrational.
The first reason being that the Archbishop's position evolved over the years, because the situation evolved and he justly had to make adjustments or revise his judgements on some things. So you can pull out attitudes or quotes of his out of context and justify a vast range of opinions! Anyhow, I am commenting against my best judgement...

Which leads me to ask, and I am very sorry to do this on someone's thread, but I cannot create a thread myself... How do I cancel or delete my Cathinfo account??? I have sent several messages to the Administrator without getting an answer. Can someone help me there? Thank you in advance!

The issue in question is the validity of the official new rite as promulgated by Pope Paul VI which has only an ut changed to an et in the essential form, but I'm sure you know that.

The Archbishop, and the SSPX after him, including Bishop Williamson, held it as CERTAINLY VALID and there has never been ANY evolution in that position. Bishop Williamson and others have said that the change makes the form even stronger.

The Archbishop opposed 'The Nine' on this question, and as a result, there was a certain Fr Stark SJ who was permitted by the Archbishop to work with the Society, administering sacraments.

Also as a result of the Archbishop's teaching on this subject, we have Fr Jahir Britto, superior of the FBMV, working with the Resistance in Brazil (and formerly with the SSPX). Bishop Thomas Aquinas made a public statement defending his priesthood against the attacks of those of Giovanni's persuasion... and evidently yours.

We follow Archbishop Lefebvre because we see that he was clearly raised up by God for this mission in the Church. Obviously we can see the hand of Providence in all the facets of his life: being born into an exemplary Catholic family, his priestly formation, his intelligence, learning and piety, his dream in Dakar, his work as a missionary, a seminary professor and rector, his episcopal career and work as a Superior General, an Apostolic Delegate and Council Father. We can see God's hand in all of this. And yet we do not on that account follow him blindly, but because we are convinced by his arguments and we see and hear in him the good shepherd.

So why the conditional ordinations? Read chapter 7 from Open Letter to Confused Catholics: http://sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-7.htm

Sorry, I can't help you with your account.

The issue in question is the validity of the official new rite as promulgated by Pope Paul VI which has only an ut changed to an et in the essential form, but I'm sure you know that.

The Archbishop, and the SSPX after him, including Bishop Williamson, held it as CERTAINLY VALID and there has never been ANY evolution in that position. Bishop Williamson and others have said that the change makes the form even stronger.

The Archbishop opposed 'The Nine' on this question, and as a result, there was a certain Fr Stark SJ who was permitted by the Archbishop to work with the Society, administering sacraments.

Also as a result of the Archbishop's teaching on this subject, we have Fr Jahir Britto, superior of the FBMV, working with the Resistance in Brazil (and formerly with the SSPX). Bishop Thomas Aquinas made a public statement defending his priesthood against the attacks of those of Giovanni's persuasion... and evidently yours.

We follow Archbishop Lefebvre because we see that he was clearly raised up by God for this mission in the Church. Obviously we can see the hand of Providence in all the facets of his life: being born into an exemplary Catholic family, his priestly formation, his intelligence, learning and piety, his dream in Dakar, his work as a missionary, a seminary professor and rector, his episcopal career and work as a Superior General, an Apostolic Delegate and Council Father. We can see God's hand in all of this. And yet we do not on that account follow him blindly, but because we are convinced by his arguments and we see and hear in him the good shepherd.


So why the conditional ordinations? Read chapter 7 from Open Letter to Confused Catholics: http://sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-7.htm

Sorry, I can't help you with your account.

Sure, the "wrong intention" argument.

From the link: 

The "matter" of the sacrament has been preserved in the laying on of hands which takes place next, and likewise the "form," namely the words of ordination.

We know it's not true, since ut and et have completely different meanings in Latin.

Curiously enough, Pope Pius XII published a docuмent about the essential forms of ordination (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12sacrao.htm) about twenty years before the "reformed rites" came up. I don't know why he felt the need to do this, but it does seem providential, doesn't it? We were warned by God through the Pope not to accept the changes before they happened.

It also does not make sense to me, as Abp. Lefebvre never questioned the validity of Novus Ordo baptisms. If the bishop has the wrong intention to ordain, how can you be sure that he has always the right intention to baptize?

I am obviously not an expert, but, as far as I know, the intention is always presumed when the celebrant observes the rites correctly. If the rites themselves, or even worse, their lame translations, are so horrible that the intention to do "what the Church does" is not evident in them, then how can you presume that the celebrant had the right intention? It's way too risky to act on so much presumptions. First that the change is the form did not make it invalid and second that the celebrant has a Catholic intention when he uses a non-Catholic, Modernist rite.

The Archbishop opposed 'The Nine' on this question, and as a result, there was a certain Fr Stark SJ who was permitted by the Archbishop to work with the Society, administering sacraments.

WRONG on Fr. [sic] Stark!!!

My chapel location was directly involved in the Stark Affair. Msgr. Lefebvre was unsure on the question of validity for Stark's Orders. Stark was certain of validity. There was also at the time Fr. Roger Sullivan from the Picpus Fathers whose Orders were Novus Ordo. Sullivan was unsure of validity for his Orders and so too Msgr. Lefebvre was unsure. Sullivan was therefore conditionally ordained at St. Marys, Kansas, whilst Stark REFUSED conditional ordination. Sullivan took over service for an independent, pro-SSPX chapel; Stark broke his alignment with the SSPX and began assisting at an independent, hotel-room independent chapel.

I was there for this drama; I as a young boy saw and know this history.

WRONG on Fr. [sic] Stark!!!

My chapel location was directly involved in the Stark Affair. Msgr. Lefebvre was unsure on the question of validity for Stark's Orders. Stark was certain of validity. There was also at the time Fr. Roger Sullivan from the Picpus Fathers whose Orders were Novus Ordo. Sullivan was unsure of validity for his Orders and so too Msgr. Lefebvre was unsure. Sullivan was therefore conditionally ordained at St. Marys, Kansas, whilst Stark REFUSED conditional ordination. Sullivan took over service for an independent, pro-SSPX chapel; Stark broke his alignment with the SSPX and began assisting at an independent, hotel-room independent chapel.

I was there for this drama; I as a young boy saw and know this history.

Archbishop Lefebvre April 26, 1983, Conference to Seminarians, Ridgefield:

That is another question, another problem. Fr. Stark said himself 'my ordination is good'. I am sure he IS a priest. He has been a priest for eleven years now, I think he is a very intelligent man. Not just because he is a Jesuit, no, no, no...(laughingly) ... but certainly he is a very intelligent man. He was a professor.  He said to me 'My word, somebody is discussing about the validity of my ordination'. They discuss 'No, his ordination is not valid..' Well, that is the reason why I said to you yesterday, or the day before, that we must do an inquisition [a study of each case] to know what the situation really is - in this case - not in all cases in general [i.e., not a blanket judgment]- but in this case, to see if his ordination is valid or invalid. And I am responsible, and I make the decision. I can say to him: 'You must be re -ordained'. Otherwise, if I think that his ordination is valid, really valid, then I have no right to repeat the sacrament.

You can find these conferences of Archbishop Lefebvre, which have previously been posted on this forum, online in both written format and audio. He delivered them in English, with a little help with the language on the side from a certain Fr Richard Williamson!