CathInfo.com

Ok, I just now got off the phone call with a man named Brent at Angelus Press - we had a very enjoyable conversation about many different issues regarding the NO, the state of the Church and world, always enjoy conversations with other trads about the crisis - but we did speak at length about the ordination situation - if all you want is an end summary, then here it is; trust the SSPX, they do what they can to make sure there are no concerns about the validity of any SSPX priest.


I will try to put it all in order. I did take notes....

First, each case is looked into separately, always on a case by case basis.

The SSPX takes the Church's position that the presumption is the New Rite of Ordination is valid.

The SSPX do exhaustive interviews with the defectors - this interview between the SSPX and defectors is the main thing the SSPX use to base their decision as to whether conditional ordination is or might be needed. Much pertinent information is garnered during these interviews.

During the interview, they determine whether proper matter and form were used during the NO ordination, but the primary concern is if the priest and / or bishop had the proper intention. Most often, it is this "proper intention" problem that determines whether or not the priest gets conditionally ordained.

Quite often it is the defecting priest himself that, through his own investigation determines that he needs to be conditionally ordained or re-ordained - and based on that, he gets conditionally ordained.

If it is determined that proper NO form/matter/intention occurred, then there is no conditional ordination.

All or nearly all defecting priests have, to some extent, studied the traditional faith and Mass prior to their defecting.
Nearly all defectors first went to either FSSP, ICK or some other trad organization before landing at the SSPX.

All defectors go through trad training - what that training is comprised of is dependent upon the needs of individual priest, there is no hard, fast rule for this. Again, it is done on a case by case basis. Some NO seminaries these defectors attended are known to be more problematic then others and most often, defecting priests have attended more than one, often two to five different NO seminaries.


Well, for whatever it's worth, that's about everything he said.






 

1) determine the "intentions" of the Bishops, since intention is in the internal forum and who can know what another man's is thinking?

Agreed.  If they hold the Rite to be valid, the proper intention must be presumed in the external forum, since the person DID what the Church does by following the Rite.

This is tantamount to saying that if a priest had been ordained, say, in 1956, but his bishop was a Modernist, that the priest should be conditionally ordained.

Unfortunately, the SSPX has always been a theological hot mess due to their defense of R&R.

Agreed.  If they hold the Rite to be valid, the proper intention must be presumed in the external forum, since the person DID what the Church does by following the Rite.

This is tantamount to saying that if a priest had been ordained, say, in 1956, but his bishop was a Modernist, that the priest should be conditionally ordained.

Unfortunately, the SSPX has always been a theological hot mess due to their defense of R&R.

So, now I am a little confused. Is valid intention of a sacrament based on the external forum or internal forum? I often hear that something along the lines of (forgive me if I butcher this): "it does not matter what the minister's private intention might be as long as he does what the Church does since he is demonstrating manifest intention to DO as the Church does". 
Does this view of valid intention only apply to rites where the form is so clear and unambiguous that it negates whatever private intention a minister might harbor contrary to the Chruch's intention? (For instance, in the TLM the prayers are so clear/unambiguous that praying them the minister undeniably demonstrates intention to do as the Church has always done--no matter how much he might privately harbor a desire to do otherwise, whereas with the Novus Ordo Missae it is not so clear, therefore, the internal forum becomes sole basis for determining the validity of the sacrament? 
Or put another way, since the new rites are open to interpretation, intention is no longer something that can be based on the external forum, but rather the internal forum--which makes it virtually impossible for anyone to determine which sacrament is valid and which one is not (except let's say Baptism, etc..)? 
Thank you. God bless.