Whatever. Looks like a demon priest. Does anyone think it's something +Tissier would do? Of course not and neither should you!  

If you want to be mad, then be mad at the sspx, who is starting to use doubtful priests more and more.  And they are hiding it.  The sspx created this problem.  We're trying to save souls here.

What good does it do to save everybody else's soul, but lose your own?

Don't do it.  

  You still don't grasp the problem with doubtful priests, do you?  Canon Law says we must treat them as invalid.  If you attend a doubtful priest's sacraments, you're committing grave sin.  There's no debate; that's canon law.

*  An invalid priest = a fake priest.
*  Doubtful priests must be treated as invalid, per canon law.
*  The new rites are doubtful, so new rite priests are doubtful.
*  Thus, new rite priests are doubtful and fake.


*  To fix the situation, The Church created 'conditional' rites, for doubtful cases.
*  The new-sspx sometimes uses these, sometimes doesn't.
*  Ordinations and Episcopal consecrations are public events, and the laity have a right to know.  Sacraments aren't secret.
*  The new-sspx is lacking in transparency.
*  The new-sspx is wrong for not following canon law.

Doubtful to whom? Just because you have doubt about some priests doesn't mean they are doubtful. That's the nature of doubt. It isn't certain, it's doubt. Your doubt is only your opinion. They can be as sinful as anyone and still be legit.  Who are you to judge validity? You can't possibly know all the particulars of a consecration, of the status of the consecrating bishop, Novus Ordo or not, nor the status of the priest. If you have doubts about anyone, take it to the Church, not to the laity. Or just don't go to his mass. It's very simple.  If the Church doesn't listen to your complaint, stay away from the priest you in whom you have doubt. But you are not free to publicly cast doubt on anyone, simply because you can't possibly KNOW everything about the circuмstance. You have to be able to prove your case, then take it to Church authorities before you speak. This is for your sake as well as those who you very well might be mistaken about.   

This person is smart, very well-spoken, very well-informed!  :-) 

  You still don't grasp the problem with doubtful priests, do you?  Canon Law says we must treat them as invalid.  If you attend a doubtful priest's sacraments, you're committing grave sin.  There's no debate; that's canon law.
 

 I grasp the problem with NO priests, you don't. 

Oh, and post the canon law that  "says we must treat them as invalid.  If you attend a doubtful priest's sacraments, you're committing grave sin."

I grasp the problem with NO priests, you don't.

Oh, and post the canon law that  "says we must treat them as invalid.  If you attend a doubtful priest's sacraments, you're committing grave sin."

https://sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained-30479

Here's what the sspx USED TO say.


When it concerns the validity of the sacraments, we are obliged to follow a “tutiorist” position, or safest possible course of action.

We cannot choose a less certain option, called by the moral theologians a simply probable manner of acting, that could place in doubt the validity of the sacraments, as we are sometimes obliged to do in other moral questions. If we were able to follow a less certain way of acting, we would run the risk of grave sacrilege and uncertainty concerning the sacraments, which would place the eternal salvation of souls in great jeopardy. Even the lax “probabilist” theologians admitted this principle with respect to baptism and holy orders, since the contrary opinion was condemned by Pope Innocent XI in 1679. Innocent XI condemned the position that it is permissible

in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned.... Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders." (Proposition 1 condemned and prohibited by Innocent XI, Dz. 1151)

Consequently, it is forbidden to accept a likely or probably valid ordination for the subsequent conferring of sacraments. One must have the greatest possible moral certitude, as in other things necessary for eternal salvation. The faithful themselves understand this principle, and it really is a part of the “sensus Ecclesiae,” the spirit of the Church. They do not want to share modernist, liberal rites, and have an aversion to receiving the sacraments from priests ordained in such rites, for they cannot tolerate a doubt in such matters. It is for this reason that they turn to the superiors to guarantee validity.


The new rites of ordination are similarly illegitimate, for they do not adequately express the Catholic Faith in the priesthood. By writing very strongly against them, Archbishop Lefebvre did not intend to declare their invalidity. He stated very clearly, in Open Letter to Confused Catholics, quoting parts of the ceremony that are certainly not a part of the form of the sacrament and consequently not necessary for validity, that such a ceremony destroys the priesthood:

Everything is bound up together. By attacking the base of the building it is destroyed entirely. No more Mass, no more priests. The ritual, before it was altered, had the bishop say “Receive the power to offer to God the Holy Sacrifice and to celebrate Holy Mass both for the living and for the dead, in the name of the Lord.” He had previously blessed the hands of the ordinand by pronouncing these words: “So that all that they bless may be blessed and all that they consecrate may be consecrated and sanctified.” The power conferred is expressed without ambiguity: “That for the salvation of Thy people and by their holy blessing, they may effect the Transubstantiation of the bread and the wine into the Body and Blood of Thy Divine Son.” Nowadays the bishop says: “Receive the offering of the holy people to present it to God.” He makes the new priest an intermediary rather than the holder of the ministerial priesthood and the offerer of a sacrifice. The conception is wholly different." (p.54)

There can be reasons to doubt the intention of the ordaining bishop in the conciliar Church.

The minister of the sacrament does not have to intend what the Church intends, which is why a heretic can administer a valid sacrament. He must, however, intend to do what the Church does. The positive doubt that can exist in this regard is well described by Michael Davies:

Every prayer in the traditional rite which stated specifically the essential role of a priest as a man ordained to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the living and dead has been removed. In most cases these were the precise prayers removed by the Protestant Reformers, [e.g., “Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God and to celebrate Mass, both for the living and the dead, in the name of the Lord”] or if not precisely the same there are clear parallels.... Their omission by the Protestant Reformers was taken by Pope Leo XIII as an indication of an intention not to consecrate sacrificing priests." (Ibid., pp.82, 86)

This is the text of Apostolicae Curae (Leo XIII, 1896), §33:

With this inherent defect of form is joined the defect of intention which is equally essential to the Sacrament.... If the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament."

If it cannot be said, as with Anglican orders, that the Novus Ordo rite was changed with the manifest intention of rejecting a sacrificing priesthood, nevertheless the deliberate exclusion of the notion of propitiation, in order to please Protestants, could easily be considered as casting a doubt on the intention of doing what the Church does, namely of offering a true and propitiatory sacrifice. Of course, this doubt would not exist if the ordaining bishop had indicated otherwise his truly Catholic intention of doing what the Church does.
However, the difficulty lies in the fact that the accompanying ceremonies in the new rite of ordination do not adequately express either the Catholic conception of the priesthood or the intention, as do the ceremonies in the old rite. The following texts from the archbishop, taken from spiritual conferences to seminarians, refer to the intention of the priest celebrating Mass. However, the same principles can be applied to the bishop ordaining a priest:

In the old rite, the intention was clearly determined by all the prayers that were said before and after the consecration. There was a collection of ceremonies all along the sacrifice of the Mass that determined clearly the priest’s intention. It is by the Offertory that the priest expresses clearly his intention.
However, this does not exist in the new Ordo. The new Mass can be either valid or invalid depending upon the intention of the celebrant, whereas in the traditional Mass, it is impossible for anyone who has the Faith to not have the precise intention of offering a sacrifice and accomplishing it according to the ends foreseen by Holy Church....
These young priests will not have the intention of doing that which the Church does, for they will not have been taught that the Mass is a true sacrifice. They will not have the intention of offering a sacrifice. They will have the intention of celebrating a Eucharist, a sharing, a communion, a memorial, all of which has nothing to do with faith in the Sacrifice of the Mass. Hence from this moment, inasmuch as these deformed priests no longer have the intention of doing what the Church does, their Masses will obviously be more and more invalid." (Quoted in Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, The Mass of All Time, pp. 266-267)

There can be no doubt that Archbishop Lefebvre entertained serious doubts as to the intention of some conciliar bishops when they ordain priests. In Open Letter to Confused Catholics (p.50), he points out that the doubt that overhangs the other sacraments also applies to the ordination of priests and gives examples, asking the question: “Are they true priests at all? Put it another way, are their ordinations valid?”

He goes on to explain the reason why he considers that a doubt exists over the ordaining bishop’s intention, for it is frequently no longer the intention of ordaining a priest to offer sacrifice:

We are obliged to point out that the intention is far from clear. Has the priest been ordained... to establish justice, fellowship and peace at a level which appears to be limited to the natural order only?... The definition of the priesthood given by St. Paul and by the Council of Trent has been radically altered. The priest is no longer one who goes up to the altar and offers up to God a sacrifice of praise, for the remission of sins." (Ibid., pp.51-52)

Hence the archbishop’s affirmation that the whole conception of the priesthood has changed and that the priest is no longer regarded as one having the power to do things that the faithful cannot do (ibid., p.54), but rather as one who presides over the assembly. This modernist conception certainly casts a grave shadow of doubt over the intention of the ordaining bishop.

etc, etc.  Much more to the article.

There’s various types of authority.  We’re not talking about jurisdiction. 

We’re actually talking about the logical principle of “authority of consensus”.  Every major Trad group (R&R, Sede, independent) has said there’s problems with V2.  That’s why Traditionalism exists to begin with.  Even clerics who were PART of Rome (in the 60s), said there are theological/doctrinal issues. 

The consensus on the new rite is “they are not 100% valid”.  Even the sspx does some type of “investigation”.  You don’t investigate something which is 100% certain.  Ergo, there is a doubt.

The doubts around the new rites is THE REASON that Traditinalism exists.  If you have 0 doubts on the new rites, then you have ZERO REASON to be a Trad.  If you believe the new rites are ok, you are being disobedient to Rome, by attending a Trad chapel.

Don’t let the sspx gaslight you.  The doubts on the new rites have been there from the beginning, since the 60s.  This is not some new debate. 

I agree about the rites. I don't go near doubtful priests. This is why I investigate each and every priest, SSPX or any other group.

The SSPX leadership is made up of politicians who happen to be priests. Bad politicians.