I always dislike it when a priest or bishop isn't willing to be forthcoming about his orders, what bishop ordained or consecrated him, what that bishop's lineage is, whether the priest was ordained (or the bishop was consecrated, as the case may be) in the old or new rite, and so on. There's a priest on the West Coast who is famously tight-lipped about any of this information, and people are just supposed to trust him, and are in the wrong for asking any questions. What's wrong with this picture?
Why not just put the information out there, front and center, and let the faithful make up their own minds? If a priest was ordained in the new rite, and/or by a bishop who was consecrated in the new rite, just come right out and say it. (Ditto for those cases where a priest or bishop obtained orders through the Old Catholics and similar groups with putatively valid lines. Bishop Patrick Taylor was forthcoming about his circuмstances, and while I never met him, I always wanted to visit his chapel in Beckley, West Virginia, but he had died by the time my son and I stayed there overnight on vacation a few years back, we drove out by his chapel and it was closed. Requiescat in pace.) Those who object to this can just stay away. Those who don't mind it, can agree to receive that priest's sacraments. It's not complicated.
Tell the truth, the whole truth, and let the chips fall where they may. The traditional faithful shouldn't have to go "digging" to find out what their priest or bishop won't tell them. That breeds nothing but distrust. Put another way, there's nobody who thinks "the priest won't tell us the circuмstances of his ordination, oh, how wonderful, he's definitely a priest from whom I want to receive the sacraments". And we've all seen in recent years what can happen when a priest is a "man of mystery" whose past history and present life circuмstances aren't fully known.
Not hardly.
Topic: Servants of the Holy Family (Read 17257 times)