This Fr Lundberg, here, delegated to implement the policies of Traditionis Custodes??? Oh dear!

Arlington diocese delegate: Fr. Bjorn Lundberg - The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com)

Dom Tomas de Aquino basically said the same thing about Fr. Jahir's ordination - it is valid. Period! There is the objective position of the SSPX and the Archbishop that presumes validity unless there is anything showing otherwise. And then there are the subjective opinions of laity that does not feel comfortable with such priests hence we hear some are conditionally ordained to assuage such fears and some are not.

Did Dorothy tell Toto we're not there anymore?

Sure, the opinions of the laity are all just subjective feelings.  Right.  Many of the laity are fairly well informed about the matter, and some even have some seminary training.  In fact, those who are less informed just tend to go along with whatever their priest tells them.

No, OA, it is not a question of the FORM for the new rite of ordination of priests FOR THE SSPX OF OLD OR THE RESISTANCE. This is everything to do with Sedevacantism!

Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX do not, and have never, held the officially promulgated new rite form of priestly ordination to be invalid.

Plenus, the problem with the SSPX- and it has always persisted- is that there has never been an "official position" on any issue of importance.  When I was in seminary '94-'97 I was told by three different seminary professors not to say that the New Mass is a sacrilege, because the language is "too rough."  We do not want to upset the apple cart!  One professor said to me, "How are we going to convert the Novus Ordo Catholics if we say that the New Mass is a sin?"  This liberalism has always persisted in the SSPX, hence now we have a breakoff SSPX - The Resistance.  You seem to have conflated separate issues, the new rites of the sacraments/Mass with the Sede issue. 

When Fr. Wathen began writing the Great Sacrilege (before the SSPX existed in America), the burning question was not, "Is Paul VI a valid pope or not?" but rather, "The New Mass and the New Sacraments are sinful, and Catholics may not participate in them."  Sure, there  were sedes even in the late 60's early 70's, but the main focus was the orthodoxy, the validity, the morality of these "novelties" in the Church.

Interesting. I've never seen that movie, but I think that sort of thing was a fad in late 19th-early 20th century. Alice in Wonderland definitely has a strongly hallucinogenic feel to it, and even Chesterton's fictional writings (much as I love them) have a strongly irrational atmosphere, such as The Napoleon of Notting Hill, the Ball and the Cross, The Man Who Was Thursday, and most of the Father Brown stories.

  No it doesn't.  A positive doubt of the new-church's sacraments does not (directly) lead to sedevacantism.  Mutually exclusive.


That's mainly because of the issue of time.  +ABL could not write-off all new-ordinations as invalid because some of them were done by valid novus ordo bishops.


In the same way, that's why +ABL never said all novus ordo masses are invalid...because AT THE TIME (70s, 80s, 90s), you still had valid novus ordo priests/bishops, who, if they used the TRADITIONAL CANON, even in the new mass, it could be valid.

Ultimately, the problem with the new-sspx is that it did not update its philosophy on new-rome once all the old, valid, novus ordo priests died.  Now that new-rome is 99% filled with new-rite bishops/priests, the "positive doubt" about such is VERY GREAT.  I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.

PlenusV, you're making an argument based on decades-old data.  This is why it's faulty.