I have some personal anecdotes on the new Bishop- he travels the entirety of Poland having Mass for resistance members in that country and has for quite a few years. I understand why BW consecrated him. It makes perfect sense. There are few Priests, no Bishops ( prior to Bishop Michal) and many members.

No, it really doesn't make any sense.

No way he was expelled in 2008 from SSPX for contacts with Bishop Williamson, who was at that time still an SSPX bishop in good standing. 

I don't intend to get involved in this thread, except to recall the following:

Although +Williamson was technically in good standing until 2009, he was nevertheless slated for termination at least as early as 1999 (when +Fellay first attempted to remove him as rector of the Winona seminary).  

In 2001, the only things standing between the SSPX and a practical accord were +Williamson and Avrille.

Obviously, Menzingen (and Rome) viewed him as an obstacle to the ralliement.

When I was in Winona, there was a great "under the table" divide between priests and seminarians as to who they backed: +Williamson or +Fellay (mostly for the same reasons).

So yes, +Fellay did not start menacing +Williamson until 2009, but he was already taking practical measures to eliminate him gradually at least 10 years earlier.  That being the case, with +Fellay and Rome already knowing their plans for a reoriented SSPX did not include +Williamson, expressing yourself as a great supporter of him would not be good for your ordination prospects.

I don't intend to get involved in this thread, except to recall the following:

Although +Williamson was technically in good standing until 2009, he was nevertheless slated for termination at least as early as 1999 (when +Fellay first attempted to remove him as rector of the Winona seminary). 

In 2001, the only things standing between the SSPX and a practical accord were +Williamson and Avrille.

Obviously, Menzingen (and Rome) viewed him as an obstacle to the ralliement.

When I was in Winona, there was a great "under the table" divide between priests and seminarians as to who they backed: +Williamson or +Fellay (mostly for the same reasons).

So yes, +Fellay did not start menacing +Williamson until 2009, but he was already taking practical measures to eliminate him gradually at least 10 years earlier.  That being the case, with +Fellay and Rome already knowing their plans for a reoriented SSPX did not include +Williamson, expressing yourself as a great supporter of him would not be good for your ordination prospects.

Ladislaus, in light of this wouldn't you say your judgment was premature?

Ladislaus, in light of this wouldn't you say your judgment was premature?

No.  Nobody would have gotten expelled in 2008 for merely being "in contact" with Bishop Williamson.

I agree that his story should be better explained and that the text gives the impression that he lacks humility.

On the other hand, I believe that the private tutoring of candidates to the priesthood may be the future of Tradition.

Seminaries are costly and demand a lot from the students. Some of them even have to live in another country. On regular times, men could study to the priesthood in their own dioceses.

Before the great Council of Trent, seminaries were not mandatory, so, a lot of good priests  and saints were probably educated through private tutoring.

The Opus Dei ordains to the priesthood men with professional qualifications after seminary training of a year or so.

Does no one else see the problem here?

1987 -- born

2006 -- enter SSPX seminary

2008 -- expelled from SSPX on account of being "in too close contact with Bishop Williamson"?  so, after 2 years of formal seminary.

WHAT????  Bishop Williamson was still a bishop in good standing with SSPX in 2008 (expelled only in 2012).  +Stobnicki was clearly not expelled for that reason.  Something stinks.

2008-?? -- continued studying (?) under some "senior Polish priests" (doesn't say they were trad) and 2 Trad bishops (+Thuc line bishops?).  This suggests he was actually expelled for becoming aligned with sedevacantists, not for close contact with Bishop Williamson

2013 -- contacted Bishop Williamson after +Williamson was expelled from SSPX

but ... continued on with law school, graduating in 2014 and then worked as a lawyer for a while.

2016 -- re-established contact with Bishop Williamson when he visited Poland

2017 -- ordained to the priesthood
So, was ordained a priest with only 2 years of formal seminary training, some nebulous private training, and law school

2022 -- after just 5 years as a priest, at the age of 35, again, with very little seminary training under his belt, consecrated a bishop

Why?  "Such were the fruits of my priestly ministry ..." aka I was such an awesome priest that I was consecrated a bishop at the age of 35 with 2 years of formal seminary training.

Something doesn't add up here, and this is going to give anti-Resistance a lot of ammunition.  He's clearly lying about why he was expelled from SSPX in 2008.  Not a good start for a Traditional bishop with 2 years of formal seminary training and 5 years of "priestly ministry" under his belt, probably serving chapels of about 15 people.

Yes I didn't buy the one-sided reason given that he was expelled because he was "too close to Bp Williamson". That is why priestly ordinations and episcopal consecrations should rarely be done secretly. The worldwide lockdowns aren't even a good excuse because it is pretty obvious it can't last forever. The sedevacantist groups fare much better than the Resistance in this regard.

You think he'd lie like that about the reason for being expelled knowing full well Bp. Williamson can out him as a liar at any time? No way.

Well, we all know what happened with the case of Fr. Rodrigo da Silva.