As I mentioned earlier on this thread, Fr. Phil Wolfe's interpretation of the General Judgment differs from that of Fr. R, but due to my own education I can verify that Fr. Wolfe's is the more likely scenario and is more in accord with Catholic theology informed by Catholic spirituality. 
 

I love listening to trad sermons and do so all the time, Fr. Wathen and Fr. Hesse are my only favs after taking Fr. R off the list, I haven't listened to anything from Fr. Wolfe as of yet but plan to once I get time to convert and download a few of his youtubes to my phone.

Fr. R just talks too fast most of the time for me and like Alexandria said, he seemed off to me somehow. Fr. R is the only one I ever heard say that the Final Judgement will take eons to get through - the way he describes it, it would take about a couple of hundred million years - which sure sounds like it would put a damper on the bliss of heaven, at least until everyone was judged.
 

Precisely.  It lacks credibility. It also lacks conformity with Catholic spirituality.  That is, on this earth, we are shown windows into the evil others commit, and those windows are salvific for us because through those lenses we see our own evil reflected back to us.  That's not all we see about others, but it is part of what God allows us to see.  Some priests see more than that, both figuratively and literally in Confession, as some do read souls or come quite close to viewing those areas shielded from the sight of lay people.
No way, practically speaking, would even 5 billion people in today's population -- never mind previous billions of later-risen bodies and souls at the General Judgment -- be able to provide testimony about their countless sins and "answer for each and every one of them" (according to Fr. R) to the Heavenly Court and to the entire risen population at the General Judgment.  But more importantly, such a scenario is not in keeping with the economy of salvation, a key point of which is that individual salvation ceases at the General Judgment.  That is the moment of sentencing, Fr. R., not a prolonged, several million-years trial.  The trial has been one's own lifetime.  The sentencing will be delivered at the GJ, and it will consist of only two directions, Heaven or Hell.
Further, the God of Mercy will be glorifying the Elect -- one of those only-two divisions -- by making manifest that glory, which reflects His own.  That will give opportunity for the rest of the Elect to praise and glorify God Almighty, not to dwell on minute venial sins not yet confessed or on mortal sins already confessed and forgiven.

Yes, I agree. Scratch that "couple of hundred million years" I mentioned, change that to at least a few trillion years. At any rate, thanks for the link to Fr. Wolfe, I have them on my phone now so I plan to listen to them later.

Can someone post the link to where Fr. Ripperger says that?  

I believe these can be heard from a series of talk he gave titled, “Four Last Things”. You can find them on YouTube at Sensus Fidelium channel.

Can someone post the link to where Fr. Ripperger says that?  

He starts on the Final Judgement at about the 19 minute mark, but from 37:40 to 38:05 is where he says it. The video should start at 37:40ish when you click the link.

 https://youtu.be/xH-7RYtS-VQ?t=2260

Also MM, I listened to the first 10 or so minutes of Fr. Wolfe's sermon titled: "Salvation is only in the Catholic Church." I stopped listening after he said the majority of his sermon will be about what that really means, and that he will reference writings from Msgr. Fenton, whom he praised as one of the Fathers of V2. I listened until he started talking about those who are outside of the Church while being members of the Church by desire.  

So I would suggest that whoever listens to this priest to beware. He likely has some very good teachings, but they are mixed in with the bad.

He likely has some very good teachings, but they are mixed in with the bad.

This applies to ANY priest who is indult or "under rome".  Any priest who accepts V2 will necessarily have faulty theology and many other unorthodox views because they are infected with Modernism of the past 100 years (yes, Modernism existed prior to Pope St Pius X).  They may have all the good intentions in the world, but they will still have some unorthodox views.  Beware.

t seems logical to me; however, we could also instantly know the sins of everyone else too by some special grace practically instantly because God makes it happen. 

We "could."  However, given the rest of traditional Catholic theology, Fr. Wolfe's explanation makes more sense -- that details of the forgiven sins of the Elect will be shielded from the knowledge of the rest of the Elect because of the priority of focusing on God's glory and the power of His mercy.  It's also possible, yes, that we will instantly/instantaneously be aware, somehow, of the degree of conversion of each member of the Elect and the degree of God's generosity in that forgiveness, without also being treated to a morbid and detailed display of every private confession they've ever participated in, in addition to any unconfessed sins. (The latter is Fr. R's interpretation.)  It seems a tad vindictive to me, when there are probably other ways to satisfy the element of divine justice, universally revealed.

It's at the Particular Judgment where we are "treated," haha, to a display of our life, in whatever exhaustive and minute detail He so chooses. It wouldn't be necessary to repeat that, in the same manner ("accountability for every infraction" is what Fr. R was emphasizing) at the GJ.  

details of the forgiven sins of the Elect will be shielded from the knowledge of the rest of the Elect because of the priority of focusing on God's glory and the power of His mercy.

I've not heard Fr. Wolfe say this, but I'll take your word for it. I also have not heard this before.

I am of the view that we will know each other's sins, confessed or not.
(ST; Supp. Q.87)
Article 1.
I answer that, According to Romans 2:15-16, "In the day when God shall judge" each one's conscience will bear witness to him and his thoughts will accuse and defend him. And since in every judicial hearing, the witness, the accuser, and the defendant need to be acquainted with the matter on which judgment has to be pronounced, and since at the general judgment all the works of men will be submitted to judgment, it will behoove every man to be cognizant then of all his works. Wherefore each man's conscience will be as a book containing his deeds on which judgment will be pronounced, even as in the human court of law we make use of records. Of these books it is written in the Apocalypse (20:12): "The books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged by those things which were written in the books [Vulgate: 'book'], according to their works." According to Augustine's exposition (De Civ. Dei xx) the books which are here said to be opened "denote the saints of the New and Old Testaments in whom God's commandments are exemplified." Hence Richard of St. Victor (De judic. potest.) says: "Their hearts will be like the code of law." But the book of life, of which the text goes on to speak, signifies each one's conscience, which is said to be one single book, because the one Divine power will cause all to recall their deeds, and this energy, in so far as it reminds a man of his deeds, is called the "book of life" [Cf. I:24:1 ad 1]. Or else we may refer the first books to the conscience, and by the second book we may understand the Judge's sentence as expressed in His providence
Article 2.
On the contrary, A gloss on 1 Corinthians 4:5, "will . . . bring to light the hidden things of darkness," says: "Deeds and thoughts both good and evil will then be revealed and made known to all."
Further, the past sins of all the good will be equally blotted out. Yet we know the sins of some saints, for instance of Magdalen, Peter, and David. Therefore in like manner the sins of the other elect will be known, and much more those of the damned.

I answer that, At the last and general judgment it behooves the Divine justice, which now is in many ways hidden, to appear evidently to all. Now the sentence of one who condemns or rewards cannot be just, unless it be delivered according to merits and demerits. Therefore just as it behooves both judge and jury to know the merits of a case, in order to deliver a just verdict, so is it necessary, in order that the sentence appear to be just, that all who know the sentence should be acquainted with the merits. Hence, since every one will know of his reward or condemnation, so will every one else know of it, and consequently as each one will recall his own merits or demerits, so will he be cognizant of those of others. This is the more probable and more common opinion, although the Master (Sent. iv, D, 43) says the contrary, namely that a man's sins blotted out by repentance will not be made known to others at the judgment. But it would follow from this that neither would his repentance for these sins be perfectly known, which would detract considerably from the glory of the saints and the praise due to God for having so mercifully delivered them.

Reply to Objection 1. All the preceding merits or demerits will come to a certain amount in the glory or unhappiness of each one rising again. Consequently through eternal things being seen, all things in their consciences will be visible, especially as the Divine power will conduce to this so that the Judge's sentence may appear just to all.

Reply to Objection 2. It will be possible for a man's merits or demerits to be made known by their effects as stated above (Article 1, Reply to Objection 1), or by the power of God, although the power of the created intellect is not sufficient for this.

Reply to Objection 3. The manifestation of his sins to the confusion of the sinner is a result of his neglect in omitting to confess them. But that the sins of the saints be revealed cannot be to their confusion or shame, as neither does it bring confusion to Mary Magdalen that her sins are publicly recalled in the Church, because shame is "fear of disgrace," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii), and this will be impossible in the blessed. But this manifestation will bring them great glory on account of the penance they did, even as the confessor hails a man who courageously confesses great crimes. Sins are said to be blotted out because God sees them not for the purpose of punishing them.

-----

So Thomas differs from Peter Lombard here slightly and says we'll know based on merit and demerit.

It's not perfectly clear still the mode by which we will know other's sins we may only know them insofar as the effects of them brought God glory.

Interesting topic regardless, one which I think about a lot.