@Sean Johnson looks like the links within the article don’t work. You have to use the search and type: Validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations. Then just select the page 1-8.

I added that it isn’t the SSPX position less anyone think it was - there are issues with the SSPX article too. Fr. Calderon may be the best the SSPX has to offer but he’s out of his depth on this particular subject.

Quite a poor article by Fr. Calderon. He makes at least a dozen errors, some of them quite fundamental, which really only leads one to conclude, on this matter, he simply doesn’t understand what he’s writing about.

Anyway, it’s just his personal opinion (he may no longer hold it) and this isn’t the official SSPX line according to this article series:
Validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations

You clearly don’t understand what malice is: it is a conscious decision to act against Church authority, involving full knowledge and deliberate consent.

The refusal to answer the summons and appear before the DDF is one example. His apparent reconsecration by +BW is another. His many public statements and actions that show a clear intent to reject Church authority. His malice is easily demonstrable.

Concelebration was part of the Lyonese Use before Vatican II:

(It’s really not the hill for the FSSP to die on)

What’s the issue?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia (Fr. Adrian Fortescue):

Concelebration is the rite by which several priests say Mass together, all consecrating the same bread and wine. It was once common in both East and West. As late as the ninth century priests stood around their bishop and "consented to his sacrifice" (Corp. Jur. Can., Decr. Grat., Pars III, dist. I, cap. 59). The rite of Concelebration was modified at Rome (perhaps in the time of Pope Zephyrinus, 202-218) so that each priest should consecrate a separate host (the deacons holding these in patens or corporals); but they all consecrated the same chalice ("Ordo Rom. I", 48; see also Duchesne, "Liber Pont.", I, 139 and 246). In the sixth century this rite was observed on all station days; by the eighth century it remained only for the greatest feasts, Easter, Christmas, Whitsunday, and St. Peter ("Ordo Rom. I", 48; Duchesne, "Origines", 167). On other days the priests assisted but did not concelebrate. Innocent III (1198-1216) says that in his time the cardinals concelebrate with the pope on certain feasts (De Saer. Altar. Myst. in Migne, P.L., CCXVII, IV, 25). Durandus, who denied the possibility of such a rite (Rationale Div. Off., IV, d. xiii, q. 3) is refuted by Cardinal Bona (Rer. Liturg., I, xviii, 9). St. Thomas defends its theological correctness (Summa Theol., III:82:2). Concelebration is still common in all the Eastern Churches both Catholic and schismatic. In these, on any greater feast day, the bishop says the holy liturgy surrounded by his priests, who consecrate with him and receive Holy Communion from him, of course under both kinds. So also, at any time, if several priests wish to celebrate on the same day, they may do so together.