CathInfo.com

Interesting.
from your link:
Quote
Two problems with Wiest:
1. The Old Catholic Church is NOT Catholic.
2. The "line" he is from is an Abbate cult.


What  follows is from the same link:
https://wrldrels.org/2020/05/10/new-jerusalem-church-of-the-celestial-messenger/
(N.B. Written by supporters of the Abbate cult)/

n 1919, Abbate’s New Jerusalem Catholic was incorporated by the State of Illinois. The trust agreement which was appended to the application included clauses on the church organization and Abbate’s role in it. The New Jerusalem Catholic Church was defined as a hierarchical organization governed by a single individual, Giuseppe Maria Abbate. He was “the sole Trustee of the Church,” and the docuмent underlined his absolute authority and his uniqueness as the divinely elect Celestial Messenger and the Celestial Father. Although he might have successors as the church leader, none would have the same elevated status that he had.

As a way to counteract Abbate and his Church, in 1919, the Roman Catholics inaugurated the St. Callistus parish at 2167 DeKalb Street, just a few blocks away from the New Jerusalem Church headquarters, which was pastored by Italian clergy. The Archdiocese explicitly stated that the foundation was a reaction to the local presence of Abbate and his congregation. Moreover, on Sundays and feast days, Roman Catholic clergy stood outside the Celestial Father’s Church telling the faithful that they were automatically excommunicated if they attended the religious services there.

1967 (December 1):  The Mother General appointed Schweikert the Successor of the Celestial Messenge

Archbishop Schweikert was enthroned as the Celestial Messenger’s successor, and he was given the name Santo Padre Maria Michael I

Schweikert died and was succeeded by Archbishop Rematt.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And yet, the school board expects us to accept that Rematt  "ordained" Wiest?
No wonder neither he nor they concocted this story until now.

1) Sacraments from the Old Catholics, including Holy Orders, are generally considered valid, just like Eastern Orthodox.
2) You edited the quote (accidentally, I'm sure), here's the full one:

1955 (June 4):  John E. Schweikert was ordained a priest in the North American Old Roman Catholic Church.
1958 (June 8):  Schweikert was consecrated a bishop in the North American Old Roman Catholic Church.
1963 (October 13):  Abbate died, and Marianna Monachino, the Mother General of The Order of Our Most Blessed Mother, Queen of Peace Reincarnated, took over the administration of the New Jerusalem Church.
1964–1965?:  The Mother General approached the Roman Catholic Diocese of Chicago, trying to convince them to send a priest who could administer the sacraments in the Sacred Heart of Jesus Church.
1965:  By referral of Roman Catholic clergy, the Mother General contacted John E. Schweikert, who had recently become the Archbishop-Primate of the North American Old Roman Catholic Church. He accepted to administer the sacraments while investigating the status of the New Jerusalem Catholic Church.
1965 (September 16):  Schweikert said his first Mass in the Sacred Heart of Jesus Church.
1967 (December 1):  The Mother General appointed Schweikert the Successor of the Celestial Messenger, Giuseppe Maria Abbate, though Schweikert did not believe in Abbate’s divine status, nor accept his episcopal consecration.
1968 (February 18):  Archbishop Schweikert was enthroned as the Celestial Messenger’s successor, and he was given the name Santo Padre Maria Michael I.

This is information on Rematt, the "Bishop" who supposedly "ordainded" Wiest. Please note that it is written by supporters of the Abbatte cult.

https://wrldrels.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/New-Jerusalem-Church.pdf

Theodore Rematt (1945–2016). When Rematt took over after Archbishop Schweikert’s death ...an anonymous woman contacted Rematt by telephone, .  she told him to go into a closet in one of the bedrooms of the rectory. There, behind a false panel, he would find all the proof he needed.

Behind the secret panel Rematt, indeed, encountered abundant docuмentation on the Padre Celeste and the history of the New Jerusalem Catholic Church of the Celestial Messenger: transcripts from his trials, (for sɛҳuąƖ abuse of young teen girls) affidavits of support, church publications, and photos. Rematt was shocked by what he read; the founder of the church had believed that he was God and he had been convicted for several serious crimes and declared criminally insane.

Rematt ... destroyed all the files. Later on, when other traces of Abbate and his activities were encountered, he ordered that they should be destroyed, as well.(This is called a cover-up.)

Rematt ... argued for legal continuity with the church Abbate founded in
1919, and that he, as Abbate’s legal successor was the sole trustee and
had absolute authority to make decisions, financial and otherwise.
($$$$$)


the journalist quoted Sister Maria Bernadette as saying:
"If this were the Roman Catholic Church, the nuns presumably could transfer to another convent beyond the jurisdiction with whom they were at loggerheads. But Sacred Heart of Jesus is suigeneris, a unique foundation established by Joseph Abbate"
(They were NOT Catholic.)

That is a big If, at the center of this whole issue. And yes I understand the distinction but I don't think you see the severity of the problem. Let me stress this point, kids are potentially in danger by having someone with a position of authority be around them without being properly identified, not just as a priest but as any grown adult would have in position of authority before children, whether it be a teacher, principal on in this case including a priest, etc. that has that level of access to children and trust from children. I'm not accusing him of anything, just making an observation that having that position of authority could be abused and I would hope that said position of authority would be scrutinized.

How can he defend, protect and impart the faith while doing things that could endanger the faith? Now a chapel is divided over this. I doubt a good priest that understands the privilege of the priesthood would let all these questions about his validity and basic identification clutter the minds of his sheep making them scatter.

When did I or anyone else say that Fr. Wiest should be trusted with anything, especially children?

The reason that I bothered to get into this in the first place is because of the adamant insistence of some that Fr. Wiest is definitely not a priest and MUST be addressed as Mr.

The priesthood does not belong to the man who has received it, it is from God Himself. So even if I wouldn't trust the guy to mow my lawn, the priesthood MUST be respected. Is what I am trying to say a bit clearer now?