CathInfo.com

Although the attached report is not on Fr. Hesse or Fr. Relyea, it might be relevant to this conversation. 

I do not deny there is doubt, neither does the SSPX - -but the SSPX does deny there is doubt when done by the book.

  Which book, though?  The latin book, or the various english/vernacular translations?  Or maybe the "bishop" (new rite episcopacy = doubtful) had the correct translation in his book and simply decided to use the word 'presbyterate' (i.e. invalid) instead of 'priesthood'.

1.  If a new-rite seminarian is being ordained (and his whole life has been part of the V2 religion), is he really going to pay attention to (much less remember) if the "bishop" used the word presbyterate or priesthood?  I highly doubt he would remember.  Ergo, there is doubt of the validity.

2.  Again, if a seminarian has grown up his whole life with ENGLISH/vernacular masses, why would he balk at the use of English/vernacular at his ordination?  He wouldn't.  Ergo, there is doubt.

Just so you know, you are insisting that you're right and both the SSPX and sedes are wrong. Me, I do not know either way, so if it were up to me, conditional ordination across the board for all converted NO priests would be the rule, but it's not up to me, or you, or anyone else here. 

  The sspx says it's 100% valid.  Sedes say 100% invalid.  Both are extremes.  I say it's doubtful.  So do you, as you admit "I don't know either way".  So why are you defending the sspx?  Unless you just want to argue.

You correctly reject the new mass because the MODERNISTS injected doubt in the consecration and modernized the 'mass'.  Yet for ordinations, you give THESE SAME MODERNISTS a pass and assume their changes are insignificant.  You don't see a problem with this bi-polar mindset?

So the MODERNISTS changed just about everything of the Faith (i.e. rosary, mass, confirmation, confession, etc), but you think they left the ordination rite alone, with no damage?  You think they left the CENTRAL NECESSITY OF THE FAITH (i.e. priests) alone and didn't change anything?  Are you insane?

"5) The matter and the form of the Latin rite of priestly ordination introduced by Pope Paul VI in 1968 are not subject to positive doubt.
They are, in effect, practically identical to those defined by Pope Pius XII in 1947 in Sacramentum Ordinis. (In this, priestly ordination differs from the sacrament of Confirmation, which in the new rite uses an entirely different and variable form, and one whose validity has been questioned.)

Ok, so Fr Scott says that the new rites IN LATIN are ok.  But how many ordinations are said in latin?  Even if latin is used, the "bishop" is still doubtful.

However, this moral certitude may not necessarily exist with vernacular translations of the form, which would have to be reviewed to exclude all positive doubt.

Ahhh, but then he admits there IS POSITIVE DOUBT for ordinations in the vernacular. 

a.  Positive doubt exists.
b.  Investigation.
c.  Might remove positive doubt.

Ergo, POSITIVE DOUBT EXISTS IF THE VERNACULAR IS USED.  PERIOD.

One such change was the provisional ICEL translation of the form itself, substituting “Give the dignity of the presbyterate” for the traditional expression “Confer the dignity of the priesthood.” Michael Davies comments: “In English speaking countries the priesthood has never been referred to as the presbyterate” (The Order of Melchisedech,1st ed., p.88).

So one simple word change = invalid.  Just like the millions of masses which were invalid due to "for all" instead of the (latin) "for many". 
  

It is not always easy to determine what English translation was used, and whether or not it induces a positive doubt."

Then Fr Scott admits "it's not always easy to determine the translation used"....THIS MEANS THERE IS DOUBT.  He just admitted it.

So the whole notion of an "investigation" = 'not easy to determine'.  Which means, the investigation is pointless, for most.

SSPX -- So what your ordination in the vernacular?
"priest" - Yes.
SSPX -- What version of the vernacular book was used?
"priest" - Not sure.  Does it matter?
SSPX -- Yes.  Did the bishop (doubtful) say the word 'presbyterate' or 'priesthood'?
"priest" - Don't remember.  Aren't they the same?
SSPX -- No.  
"priest' - Oh, well my "bishop" was very "traditional".  He loves the latin mass.  I'm sure it's valid.
SSPX -- But you're not sure what word he used?
"priest" - No.
SSPX -- Would you be open to a conditional ordination?
"priest" - Is that necessary?
SSPX -- Only if you feel like it is.
"priest" - I really feel like I'm a priest.
SSPX -- Ok, this investigation is complete.  Welcome to Tradition.


-----

He didn't even address the elephant in the room = episcopal consecrations, which are HIGHLY doubtful.


Even IF the ordination rite was used correctly (i.e. valid as to the prayers used), the ordination IS STILL DOUBTFUL because the "bishop" ordaining is a doubtful bishop.