It should, however, be pointed out that the Eastern rites in Newchurch are just as invalid as the Western rites. For further information on this topic, click on FAQ10: How Do You Explain These Traditional Catholic Beliefs?

This man ... an extremely doubtful "priest" (we can call him a presbyter) ... is utterly insane.  There's absolutely zero reason to have any positive doubt about the validity of the Catholic Eastern Rites.  He also calls the 1962 Tridentine Mass "HALF" Novus Ordo, which is utterly ridiculous to anyone who has gone past 1st grade math.

This man is to be avoided and falsely postures as a Traditional Catholic.

Let's have a look at the stupidity from this man who likely has less training for the priesthood than I do.

Here's his "proof" (provided at the link) that the Eastern Rites are equally invalid as the Western, one paragraph at a time:

First, of all, Catholics are generally prohibited from switching
rites.  This is particularly true in the case of (traditional) Roman-Rite
Catholics, who are already members of the Church's precedential rite. 
Therefore, in those rare cases where rite switching is permitted, the
transition is almost always from the Eastern to the Roman, the rite of
St. Peter.

bzzzzzt.  Nobody is talking about "switching Rites", but just about whether the Sacraments are valid.  He's also got it completely backwards, claiming that it is more generally permitted to switch from Eastern to Western.  Opposite is true.  There has been a concern in many countries that the Western Rites (which are more pervasive and widespread) would eventually cannibalize all the Eastern by drawing away its membership.  Finally, his assertion that Catholics are "generally prohibited" from switching Rites, these are obviously not normal times, and to reiterate, this isn't about switching Rites but about receiving the Sacraments and whether they are "valid".

Does this man even have a GED much less a true Catholic seminary education?

Second, the Eastern Rites have in many cases abandoned their
Apostolic form.  At one time the Easterners had Apostolic rites, but many
have now fallen away from these because of the constant wars and
conquests of invasion in the East (from which the Western Church has thankfully been
spared).  The liturgical scholar Fr. Adrian Fortescue once wrote:  "The
ruthless destruction of the ancient rites in favor of uniformity has been
the work not of Rome but of the schismatical patriarchs of Constantinople.
Since the thirteenth Century Constantinople in its attempt to make itself the
one center of the Orthodox Church has driven out the far more venerable and
ancient liturgies of Antioch and Alexandria and has compelled all the
Orthodox to use its own late derived rite."

Again, he of a High-School-caliber intellect misunderstands Father Fortescue, who is saying that Constantinople attempted to suppress the non-Byzantine Rites such as the Antiochene and Alexandran, but the Byzantine Rites are equally apostolic.  So, what does this bozo contend, that these Rites have been Modernist and "invalid" for many centuries?  And the Holy See was wrong in accepting them as legitimate, Catholic, and valid?  Those who studied the Rites hold that they are essentially the same as the Rites of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil.  Remember that this clown is the same one who contends that the 1962 Tridentine Mass is "HALF" Novus Ordo, so for him a 3-word change means substantial change, so how is he to be taken seriously in claiming that there's substantial change in these Rites?  PS:  there hasn't been.

Finally, since Vatican II many of the Eastern churches substitute a
more vernacularized, Novus-Ordoized worship service.  This is
particularly true in the United States.  Roman-Rite Catholics are easily duped by
these "modernized" Eastern rites because they are ignorant of the Eastern Rite
and their liturgical languages (Biblical Greek, Syriac, etc.).

Here again he puts his gross ignorance on display.  Eastern Rites commonly used the vernacular before Vatican II.  At one point, St. Pius X commanded the Hungarian Byzantines to switch to Classical Greek.  He gave them several years to make the transition, but then he died and the subsequent popes rescinded it.  And there were others who were not thus commanded to transition.  In fact, many of the Eastern Rites have used neither Biblical Greek or Syriac, but old Slavonic, which was in fact the vernacular at the time it was introduced by Sts. Cyril and Methodius, as were Greek and Syriac in their day.  So, no, this is not "since Vatican II".  He's also lying (and/or grossly ignorant) that the Eastern Liturgies were were "Novus-Ordized" ... with the exception of the Maronite Rite.  Rest were largely untouched and unchanged until in some parts of the world (including US), there was a very slight revision of the translations and especially the melodies (as the ancient melodies seemed ill fit for English).  Their translations were accurate, e.g., they have always kept "for you and for many", and otherwise tried to remain faithful to the Greek text.  Nor does any of this affect validity.

then blah blah blah, he goes on a rant about the modernization of the Maronite Rite, which is somewhat accurate, as the Maronites have always had a Romanizing tendency (which benefitted them before V2 but hurt them post V2 by trying to adapt somewhat to the V2 changes).  But this was almost entirely in accidentals, such as facing the people, the position of the altar, etc.  More recently have started using lay female readers and altar girls.  But even despite these abuses, the Rite itself is essentially unchanged and undoubtedly valid.  Even when the rest of the Mass is in English, they say the words of consecration in the original Aramaic.

This pseudo-priest and pseudo-Traditional Catholic blows a lot of smoke out of his posterior, without proof, and clearly putting his gross ignorance on display for the entire world to see.  He denounces just about everything as invalid ... when his own Holy Orders are in extreme doubt.  His nonsense should rightly be banned from this forum, as I believe it was for some time by Matthew.

Yes, Lad is spot-on. Traditio is using awful reasoning. It makes zero sense and is essentially heretical.

Traditio is one of the main problems with the Traditional Catholic movement: A lot of people think they're the Church. They are those Protestant megachurch pastors who butcher Sacred Scripture with Catholic externals and a Catholic veneer over it.

So the traditio guy is just dumb
The Syriac rites have always had some of the readings facing the people, and most of the fore mass takes place outside the sanctuary. The Malabar faced the people for both post VII. The changes are actually in favor of tradition with the priest now facing east properly. Frank actually is removing the bishop who refused ad orientem. So exactly opposite of what traditio says

Traditio has always been dumb. Blatant falsehoods, inaccurate everything, sensationalist writing. Their Mass center directory included, by the way.

I disagree.
Their mass center directory has been very beneficial.  I just don't look at their ratings (smiling faces vs frowning faces).

Not when he and some of the listed places in his directory are of dubious validity.

Traditio has always been dumb. Blatant falsehoods, inaccurate everything, sensationalist writing. Their Mass center directory included, by the way.

Their directory helped me find my chapel.