I came back to the Church straight back into tradition in like 1995, and from then till like about 2004, the SSPX at first conditionally ordained (CO) all the Novus Ordo priests that asked for it, and "likely" advised CO to the ones that they thought might have had doubtful ordinations due to a modernist bishop "liberal" intentions/omission of words etc.

Since like 2005, I don't hear of any conditional ordinations. If you ask any Novus Ordo ordained SSPX priest that came into the society since 2004 or so, you will find that they have not been conditionally ordained.

What this means is that the SSPX considers the new ordination rite and ALL the Novus Ordo ordained and consecrated bishops to be real priest and bishops. That is a change.

God has only placed one or two of these SSPX Novus Ordo ordained priests in my path for one or two masses, so I do not have to deal with it. If however, I had one of these priest permanently assigned to my SSPX parish, and no other option, I would go seek a less doubtful alternative.  

Well, when the X-SSPX finally inks the deal with the Conciliar Church, then there will be at least three undoubtedly valid bishops in that church, and a few hundred undoubtedly valid priests.  Perhaps, at that point then, the SSPX will constitute the Church! :)

Francis I is only undoubtedly a deacon, but one of the three (once and former) SSPX bishops could do him the courtesy of conditionally ordaining him a priest and consecrating him a bishop.  Maybe the protection of the Holy Ghost will kick in then.  Just saying ...

Quote from: Last Tradhican

I came back to the Church straight back into tradition in like 1995, and from then till like about 2004, the SSPX at first conditionally ordained (CO) all the Novus Ordo priests that asked for it, and "likely" advised CO to the ones that they thought might have had doubtful ordinations due to a modernist bishop "liberal" intentions/omission of words etc.

Since like 2005, I don't hear of any conditional ordinations. If you ask any Novus Ordo ordained SSPX priest that came into the society since 2004 or so, you will find that they have not been conditionally ordained.

What this means is that the SSPX considers the new ordination rite and ALL the Novus Ordo ordained and consecrated bishops to be real priest and bishops. That is a change.

God has only placed one or two of these SSPX Novus Ordo ordained priests in my path for one or two masses, so I do not have to deal with it. If however, I had one of these priest permanently assigned to my SSPX parish, and no other option, I would go seek a less doubtful alternative.  

Wow. Then there is also the concern of these questionable priests traveling to different Mass centers, leaving questionably consecrated hosts in the Tabernacles. No way to keep track of this problem!

Does anyone know if Fr. Danel in Roswell, GA has been conditionally ordained?

I know a couple Trads from Georgia -- one of them is a member of CI. I think Fr. Danel was conditionally ordained by Bishop Williamson.

However, in terms of being faithful to Tradition, Fr. Danel is unfortunately not "one of the good ones".

I've never been to seminary (like Matthew has), so I have not studied the topic, but I have heard various arguments for and against.

One of the explanations I have heard that defends Novus Ordo ordinations says that to be thorough with conditional re-ordination, one would have to endeavor to examine ALL of the sacraments that the Novus Ordo priest administered after his first ordination and before his conditional re-ordination. (Baptism is excluded because anyone can baptize, even a non-Catholic.) This means that everyone who had received Holy Communion from him should be notified that perhaps they received an invalid sacrament. If that sounds like a lot of work, how about confessions? Imagine trying to contact everyone who had gone to confession to that priest when he may not have been a priest at all. Their eternal salvation hangs in the balance. They would have to arrange for a general confession in which they try to recall all their past sins, especially those mortal sins for which they had been absolved by the priest in question.

Add to this the claim that never before in Church history has any priest's previous ordination been found lacking. Again, I have not studied this topic but I am only repeating the observations and arguments that I have heard.

I've never been to seminary (like Matthew has), so I have not studied the topic, but I have heard various arguments for and against.

One of the explanations I have heard that defends Novus Ordo ordinations says that to be thorough with conditional re-ordination, one would have to endeavor to examine ALL of the sacraments that the Novus Ordo priest administered after his first ordination and before his conditional re-ordination. (Baptism is excluded because anyone can baptize, even a non-Catholic.) This means that everyone who had received Holy Communion from him should be notified that perhaps they received an invalid sacrament. If that sounds like a lot of work, how about confessions? Imagine trying to contact everyone who had gone to confession to that priest when he may not have been a priest at all. Their eternal salvation hangs in the balance. They would have to arrange for a general confession in which they try to recall all their past sins, especially those mortal sins for which they had been absolved by the priest in question.

Add to this the claim that never before in Church history has any priest's previous ordination been found lacking. Again, I have not studied this topic but I am only repeating the observations and arguments that I have heard.

I was just thinking about the possibility of a person innocent of all this goings on, and having 100% sureness that the priest they were going to confession was a priest, but in the eyes of God he was not for various impediments of today.
Not knowing the mind of God, but believing His Mercy don't you think that person's sins, even mortal were forgiven?  Even if later, as the years went by and he discovered the possibility that some of the "priests" he depended on for sacraments were not priests at all once he was forgiven, his sins don't come back because he discovered about a particular priest.  
Of course, if he wants to confess again, as we are allowed to do when in the confessional,
mention a past sin previously confessed, he can but it would not be necessary as God in His mercy has already forgiven him.
 
That is my assumption, am I wrong to think this way?

Quote from: Neil Obstat

I've never been to seminary (like Matthew has), so I have not studied the topic, but I have heard various arguments for and against.

One of the explanations I have heard that defends Novus Ordo ordinations says that to be thorough with conditional re-ordination, one would have to endeavor to examine ALL of the sacraments that the Novus Ordo priest administered after his first ordination and before his conditional re-ordination. (Baptism is excluded because anyone can baptize, even a non-Catholic.) This means that everyone who had received Holy Communion from him should be notified that perhaps they received an invalid sacrament. If that sounds like a lot of work, how about confessions? Imagine trying to contact everyone who had gone to confession to that priest when he may not have been a priest at all. Their eternal salvation hangs in the balance. They would have to arrange for a general confession in which they try to recall all their past sins, especially those mortal sins for which they had been absolved by the priest in question.

Add to this the claim that never before in Church history has any priest's previous ordination been found lacking. Again, I have not studied this topic but I am only repeating the observations and arguments that I have heard.

I was just thinking about the possibility of a person innocent of all this goings on, and having 100% sureness that the priest they were going to confession was a priest, but in the eyes of God he was not for various impediments of today.

Not knowing the mind of God, but believing His Mercy don't you think that person's sins, even mortal were forgiven?  Even if later, as the years went by and he discovered the possibility that some of the "priests" he depended on for sacraments were not priests at all once he was forgiven, his sins don't come back because he discovered about a particular priest.  

Of course, if he wants to confess again, as we are allowed to do when in the confessional, mention a past sin previously confessed, he can but it would not be necessary as God in His mercy has already forgiven him.
 
That is my assumption, am I wrong to think this way?

Speaking from gut instincts and common sense, makes it hard to accept extreme consequences for what may appear to be foolish oversights or innocent mistakes in judgment.  

We are not able to judge the internal forum. Only God knows the disposition of a person's heart. And in the end it is God's judgment that prevails.

But the Church has to go on objective reality when making rulings, and this comes into play when passing judgment on whether absolution is valid or not.  Fortunately for us laymen we don't have to deal with these things.  

Like I said, I have not studied Moral Theology or Sacramental Theology, but these are things a priest needs to learn, and certainly when he becomes a theologian he must study these topics in great detail.  Obviously, a non-Catholic so-called theologian is most likely ignorant of sacramental theology even if he has a certificate for "Theology."  

There is such a thing as validity in giving absolutions, which is why all the furror over this recent "year of mercy" when Francis granted temporary jurisdiction for absolutions for the SSPX, and then the great news of him "extending indefinitely" the same power for these priests.  If it was not important, it would not be a topic of discussion.  

But IRONICALLY, Francis trivializes it by his cavalier treatment of the subject, as if he's just having fun throwing his power around like a simpleton playing with the levers of a great, modern bulldozer or a crane. We live in the age of unqualified leaders, apparently.

In the end, it is a good idea to review one's life and confess again sins that one believes have already been confessed and apparently absolved, in the past.  I went to an SSPX retreat a few years ago, and that was the essence of the whole thing, to spend hours upon hours prayerfully contemplating all the sins of our past and reviewing them in confession to a priest whose time had been reserved for a general confession. (Protestants never bother to do anything close to that!!!) Those poor priests were really working overtime!  Sometimes they were so tired that they even fell asleep while hearing confession.  So does that effect the validity of their absolution??

I heard of one place, I think it was in Italy, when an impostor faked being a priest and sat in a confessional so he could hear the stories of people, especially women.  I don't recall hearing what the end result was of that situation, if he was caught or what, but certainly the news must have got out that a fake priest had been pulling a fast one, and people who had gone to confession there were notified, if possible.

Then I heard one story of a man faking a Mass, but that seems to be harder to believe. Why go to all that trouble to learn how to say Mass?  Of course, now with the Novus Ordo it wouldn't be difficult at all, which is another reason to stay away from Newchurch.

The eternal punishment for a man who intentionally impersonates a priest would be pretty serious.  God punished spectacularly those who mocked a man of God in the Old Testament, and this would be much more offensive to God than that.