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. 

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 of the priest that determines whether or not the priest gets conditionally ordained.

I fixed it.

They seek to determine if the priest himself had the proper intention, Brent said that many NO priests did not have the proper intention at their ordination - that's due mainly to the way they were trained in their seminary - "some seminaries are known to be more problematic than others."

The only way to determine the intention of the bishop who performed the ordination is if he said or did something outwardly that was obvious to all that he had an improper intention. So they are mainly finding out about the priest's intention, not the bishop's.

As I said in the OP, "trust the SSPX, they do what they can to make sure there are no concerns about the validity of any SSPX priest."

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

Because the NO Rite of Ordination's validity is presumed, the proper intention of the bishop is presumed - unless, like I said, the bishop said or did something obvious during the ceremony that showed he had improper intentions.  *That* is doing what they can.

And because they presume validity of the NO Rite, they presume the NO bishop who was consecrated in the NO Rite who is doing the ordination, is also valid.

Well, that's like 5 presumptions, any of which, if wrong, invalidate the priest.  That's way more convoluted than I thought.  Their approach to this scenario makes ZERO sense, except from a political/friendly agenda towards new-rome.  Just conditionally ordain these guys and have 100% certainty.  Anything less is grossly imprudent and spiritually negligent.

It only makes sense when "The SSPX takes the Church's position that the presumption is the New Rite of Ordination is valid."

Since they’ve changed the words to all sacraments would I be right in thinking all baptized in the NO would be invalid? 


It was my understanding that intention to played into the validity of Sacraments. If the priest intentions are honestly to have turned the bread and water into the body, and blood of Our Lord. Do the words still render it an invalid consecration?

Either way, they cannot automatically conditionally ordain every NO defecting priest that shows up at their door, that's not allowed. The presumption *must* start out that the sacrament is valid, tis the rule of the Church. I can't imagine a Church teaching that teaches invalidity must be presumed initially.

You're viewing this from an orthodox viewpoint, which assumes that the Church, as a system, is running normally.  But post V2, it is not orthodox and it is not running normally.  One has to assume the worst case in our V2 times.  If not, then let's assume the novus ordo is valid and all the sacraments are valid, there is no emergency situation, and the entire Traditionalist movement is not needed and schismatic. 

The Traditionalist movement exists ENTIRELY because we cannot be sure of the validity (and morality) of the new mass and sacraments.  This includes the bishops/priests.  So, yes, it is ABSOLUTELY allowed (in my opinion and in the opinion of many other current lay/cleric theologians) that we SHOULD assume the new orders are invalid.

Since they’ve changed the words to all sacraments would I be right in thinking all baptized in the NO would be invalid? 

No, baptism, marriage and (maybe) Confession are still ok.  The others are problematic.

It was my understanding that intention played into the validity of Sacraments.

In the old rite, the intention of the priest was part of the prayers of the sacrament.  In the new rite, the intention is not specifically said in the prayers, so the priest has to have the proper intention/mentality.

If the priest intentions are honestly to have turned the bread and water into the body, and blood of Our Lord. Do the words still render it an invalid consecration?

In a novus ordo mass, the priest HAS to supply the intention because the words have been changed into a narrative so that the priest is not speaking in the "1st person" when he says the consecration.  Assuming he's a priest (which is a big assumption), if he has the proper intention, then the consecration would be valid.

However, even if he's a priest and even if the consecration is valid that doesn't mean the novus ordo is a complete Mass, nor does it mean it's a licit Mass, nor does it mean that it is moral and pleasing to God.  It would mean that communion would be available to the laity, but the "service" itself would be sinful.  Only God can make a judgement on who is/isn't guilty for attending this service, since it's a fake mass, and you can't commit a sin (i.e. go to a fake mass) in order to do a good (i.e. receive Our Lord in Holy Communion).  That's why it's best to avoid the novus ordo altogether.