Seraphina, Lad already had Zigrang (name and photo) on the Fake Priests website. So, I assume he had sufficient information to do that.

Here is a note about him from the Catholiccandle.org website:

But if you could contact him and clear up the confusion, that would be great.

Sorry, I must have been thinking of somebody else. The priest I had in mind could not have been in the House of Studies in 2007. He isn’t from the US and the age is entirely wrong. Even the n.o. doesn’t “ordain” grammar school boys!  

Open letter to Father Benoît de Jorna […] It is so true that Archbishop Lefebvre himself conferred ordination in Fontgombault - under the constraint of the master of ceremonies of the abbey - Father Jean-Yves Cottard, according to the new rite.

Is this true?

This refers to a French video because it has a TimeStamp...I'll look Sunday...

https://www.leforumcatholique.org/message.php?num=899184



(******

I just now posted, in "Members Only Board", a short translation of the interview on YouTube that deals with + Lefebvre. Title: Fr. Fabrice Loiseau. 

Must priests who come to Tradition be re-ordained?

This article by Fr. Peter Scott first appeared in the September 2007 issue of The Angelus magazine.


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

So, that's one reason that one of the brightest minds in SSPX has been relegated to a mud hut in Nigeria, and not only that, as an "assistant priest", not even the Prior there.

I'll nevertheless have to disagree with much of his rationale here, where he concludes things like ...

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.

Why, Father Scott, "cannot [that] be said"?  I think it's quite clear that it's PRECISELY why they were doing that, excising every single reference to the power of the priest to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, not even leaving one reference behind by accident?  In fact, many of the Deformers of the Catholic Rites publicly ADMITTED that it was their intention with both the Mass and the Orrders to make them non-offensive to Prots, i.e. to make them "in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers" ) [Apostolicae Curae 30].  Father should have quoted the entire thing.  Notice that Leo XIII didn't even say the Anglicans were "rejecting a sacrificing priesthood" (as Father Scott falsely puts in the mind of Pope Leo), when Pope Leo actually said that they were merely attempting to SUIT the "errors of the reformers".  How is that not exactly what the Conciliar Deformers were doing?

So, yes, Father, it absolutely CAN be said that this was their INTENTION, and again, the intention as manifest in the external forum, by what they DID, not what they may or may not have intended in the internal forum.

This was consistent with the SSPX "have your cake and eat it too" theology, where they wanted to regularly do conditionals, perhaps because they knew the faithful would not accept anything else and keep donating, but without then having to fight off the attacks from the SVs about the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants.  It's just like with the FrankenChurch theology of "Eternal Rome" and "Modernist Rome" ... where they could have their pope and eat him too, technical have a guy was was part "Eternal Pope" (whom they could pay lip service to and put up pictures of in their vestibules, so as not to scare off new visitors and contributors to their collections, and part "Modernist Pope" (that they could rip to pieces and justify their whole apostolate).

While we should not diminish the value of the souls in Lagos, this is where Father heads up a chapel in Lagos, Nigeria, as an assistant priest to some young +Fellay yes man at the nearby priory ...

Haven't they done the same with Fr. Chazal? I mean, putting him as far away as possible, both from his own culture and geographically? But it kind of backfired, since he became one of the leading voices of the Resistance and seems to be doing a great job among the people there.

Some of these priests transfers are kind of cruel. I don't really see how the priest or the faithful profit from such extreme differences. A goodwilling local priest could probably do a better job, since he would not spend so much time and energy learning the languages and cultures. As far as I know, before the Vatican II, a religious would not be transfered to a different district if the did not agree with the transfer. No such privilege in the SSPX.