I have a lifetime supply of tooth powder called Dentifice. It works very well on teeth and I’ve no gum problems. I don’t know what’s in it because the rest of the writing is in Urdu. I bought it years ago in a NYC dollar store. I liked it so much, I went back and bought all of it. The store was a one of a kind run by Pakistanis. If it hasn’t killed me yet, I guess it’s alright. I still need to get some teeth fixed because of pre-Dentifice problems. I’m a problematic patient as I have an overbite that does NOT cause problems and I have latex allergy, novacaine allergy, and a hairtrigger gag reflex. IOW, I need to be knocked out for any but very basic care. All you get is dentists who do cosmetic dentistry. They want to do extensive surgery to correct the overbite, trim off resulting “excess” gums and palate, and give me a full set of porcelain implants. Sorry, but everyone even if I had the $250,000 and two-three years to dedicate to my teeth, I don’t want surgeries or movie star teeth only to be buried! They’ll outlast me even if I live to 100! I’ll be happy with a few caps and a bridge.

Oh, wow!  This makes me wonder if tooth powder was originally more common and toothpaste a more modern thing. 

Doubtful Sacraments in the SSPX
The Price of Rapprochement with Modernist Rome

Sean Johnson
Aug 10, 2025








A. Introduction
In a previous post, I discussed some of the deleterious developments within the SSPX as a consequence of its quid pro quo negotiations with modernist Rome, which, among other factors, led to my departure from the local chapel. One of those developments was the arrival of a refugee priest from the conciliar church, who had never received conditional ordination, which represented a “checkmate” for my family and I, being aware as we are that, according to the SSPX’s own theologians, there are positive and probable doubts surrounding the new rites of episcopal consecration,1 and therefore priestly ordination, and that it is not permissible for Catholics to receive doubtful sacraments, as Fr. Cappello explains:
The Seraphim is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Not only in conferring, but also in receiving the sacraments it is illicit to follow a probable opinion concerning their validity, leaving aside a safer [opinion]. For although the proposition condemned by Innocent XI speaks expressly of only the one who confers, nevertheless it surely is the same for the recipient. The reason is that the recipient also, if he leaves aside the safer opinion, exposes the sacrament to the danger of nullity and thus commits an irreverence; further, if the sacrament be of necessity for salvation, he sins also against charity towards himself.
We affirm that this applies, where there is question of the validity of the sacrament in the strict sense, i.e. of matter and form, but not as regards the fruit of the sacrament.2

Consequently, as the gentlemen over at the WM Review note:

It is not legitimate to use these new rites, because their validity is at best a merely probable opinion. Instead, the safer opinion is to use the traditional rites, or nothing.
It is not legitimate to receive the sacraments administered with these new rites, for the same reasons. Instead, the safer opinion is to receive the sacraments in the traditional rites, or not at all.3

Formerly, the SSPX seemed to have accepted all this: Archbishop Lefebvre famously said that all conciliar sacraments labored under doubt, and consequently, the need to reordain.4 And we have the correspondence between +Tissier de Mallerais and a faithful regarding Dr. Coomaraswamy’s pamphlet, in which the bishop stated:

Thank you for sending me a copy of Dr. Rama Coomarawamy’s pamphlet “Le Drame Anglican.” After reading it quickly, I concluded there was a doubt about the validity of episcopal consecration conferred according to the rite of Paul VI.
The [phrase] “spiritum principalem” in the form introduced by Paul VI is not sufficiently clear in itself and the accessory rites do not specify its meaning in a Catholic sense.5

Today, of course, the SSPX has largely backtracked in the matter of the conditional repetition of doubtful sacraments (and not just in the case of episcopal consecration and priestly ordination, but also in the matter of confirmations), as can be gleaned from by Fr. Paul Robinson justifying the new praxis. This is no doubt a consequence of their imprudent conversations with Rome, which appear to have made them doubtful in regard to many of their former practices and positions touching upon sacramental validity, and brought about a reversal on many fronts.6
The purpose of this article, then, will be to survey the SSPX landscape in the hopes of discovering and revealing the extent to which the matter of doubtful ministers pervades the SSPX milieu, as a service to our readers who, having no other options, may be considering receiving sacraments from various SSPX chapels.

B. The Problem in America
The problem in the US District is bad, and getting worse (though few in the pews care). In a phone conversation I had with Resistance Bishop Gerardo Zendejas a couple years ago, he speculated there may be as many as a dozen refugee priests from the conciliar church assisting at various US District chapels who were never conditionally ordained. Msgr. Byrnes, Fr. McLukas, Fr. Pieroni, Fr. Zigrang, and Fr. Settimo come readily to mind. Fr. Feeney was conditionally ordained only belatedly after a few years in various SSPX chapels. And of course there were many other unconditionally ordained refugees circulating in previous years who only received conditional ordination after leaving their association with the SSPX (e.g., Fr. Voigt, Fr. Gallagher, et al.).
If readers have additional information regarding conciliar refugees currently dispensing sacraments at various SSPX chapels, please let us know in the comments box below this article.
What makes the problem all the more intolerable, is that these priests travel from city to city, and the faithful will often have no idea when one of them has visited his chapel on a layover, or come home to visit family, etc. In other words, just knowing that your priest was traditionally ordained is no guarantee that what’s in the tabernacle was consecrated by him. And the more questionably ordained priests the SSPX circulates in the US District, the more of a problem this becomes. It is not difficult to foresee that given the present trajectory, the issue will broaden, and combined with the Society’s reticence to inform the faithful in such matters, the faithful may soon find themselves in the unenviable position of being unable even to sift Mass venues in search of certainly vali sacraments.
Of course, this presumes the faithful even care. Most of those who did have already left the pews.

C. The Problem in Europe:
The problem in Europe is difficult to quantify, not only because of the scarcity of information available, but also because of the variety of languages. That said, the sources we do have provide shocking information.
For example, a recent interview by former SSPX priest, Fr. Fabio Callixto (SSPX - Argentina) states as his reason for leaving, the refusal of the SSPX to conditionally ordain conciliar refugees as it once did. He cites as an egregious example the SSPX District of Poland, which he claims is presently circulating an astounding 17 conciliar ordained priests who have not received conditional ordination!7 That number is even more astounding when one considers the relatively small size of the Polish District (i.e., much smaller than the US District).
If this is what is happening in Poland, what must be happening in France? We know of Fr. Belwood, for example. How many others?
And of course, we recently had the fiasco of Bishop Hounder, sent by Francis to “retire” at an SSPX boys school in Switzerland in 2017. Initially pretending he was only there to enjoy a peaceful retirement, it soon came out that Francis had sent him there to help facilitate the reintegration of the SSPX into the conciliar church. In an interview with Die Tagespost, Hounder explained:

For a long time I have been involved in the process of dialogue between Rome and the Society. Since the Headquarters of the SSPX are based in Menzingen, Switzerland, it was thought that a Swiss bishop should be involved. That’s why the Ecclesia Dei Commission, in charge of dialogue with the Society, asked me. This led to constant contact with the representatives of the Society here in Switzerland. I sent the reports to Rome. Now I will continue carrying out this mission. My main concern is the unity of the Church. The division in the Church must be overcome. We must not forget: The Society of Saint Pius X has many followers.8

By 2021, he would be celebrating public pontifical Masses at the chapel, and by 2023 he would be “consecrating” holy oils at the Chrism Mass for use in the German (and surrounding) districts, and this despite the fact that he was neither ordained a priest in the traditional rite, nor consecrated a bishop in the traditional rite by a bishop who was himself consecrated in the traditional rite.
If you were an SSPX Mass attendee in central Europe, where would you go for certainly valid confirmation, or who would you call for last rites?
Fr. Callixto tells us in the same interview cited above that:

When Bishop Tissier went to give confirmations in Germany in 2023, he asked who had consecrated the holy oils. When he was told that they had been consecrated by Bishop Huonder, he immediately sent for the oils consecrated by himself, which he had brought with him. This, surprisingly, in the middle of the ceremony.9

What an incredible revelation! Not because +de Mallerais had the courage to safeguard the validity of the confirmations, but because to the best of my knowledge, he never publicly protested the insertion of +Hounder into the SSPX milieu. He knew this questionably consecrated bishop was an agent of Francis and held his peace. He knew all Hounder’s sacraments were doubtful (at best), and said nothing.
Meanwhile, at least a couple SSPX priests were covertly approaching Bishop Faure (Resistance - France) to obtain certainly valid holy oils. But did these priests ever explain their concerns to their faithful? Did they ever protest to +Fellay or Fr. Pagliarani? But this is another matter for another time.
So much for poor Europe.

D. The Bizarre Situation in Africa
In 2018, the French news outlet Medias-Presse.info published a letter from then-SSPX African District Superior, Fr. Henry Wuilloud, seeking to explain why the Society had basically sub-contracted the services of the indultarian Institute of Christ the King, as well as a bi-ritual diocesan priest, to service some of their African Mass centers.10

As with the insertion of +Hounder in Switzerland, so too here in Africa: The faithful are made to undergo a conditioning process as part of the ralliement of the SSPX to the conciliar church, whereby Rome can be reassured that any objection to conciliar orders and sacramental rites has been purged from the faithful (and clergy). The SSPX must prove it can work shoulder-to-shoulder with modernists (whom Fr. Wuilloud tries to pass off as traditional), if it is ever to receive its public Roman approval (the de facto approval having been in place since at least 2015).
It is practically impossible to imagine Archbishop Lefebvre hob-nobbing with Ecclesia Dei priests, but this is the norm in the SSPX (and has been for quite some time).
Once again, these matters only come to light when some faithful complain. Usually, they sit quietly and say nothing. Those instances don’t get reported, but it is reasonable to project that if the African District leadership is not averse to using conciliar clergy in these locations, it is certainly not concerned about the validity of conciliar ordinations, and that being the case, it is likely there are more non-conditionally ordained refugees manning other SSPX Mass venues on the continent.

F. Conditional Ordinations in South America Dwindling
Fr. Callixto informs us in the interview cited above that, as regards conditional ordinations in Argentina (the land of Bergoglio), conditional ordinations have been fazed out. But as the keeper of record for ordinations in La Reja, he had access to the sacramental books, and tells us such was not always the case:

“The same priest, at the seminary in La Reja, was recording the ordinations for the other priests and, looking back, saw several ordination books signed as “sub conditione.” And this is no longer done!11

Corroborating evidence is also supplied in the comments box below this article by Fr. Juan Carlos Ortiz (ie., a longtime priest of the old SSPX, ordained by +Lefebvre, and since 2012 a Resistance priest, now in Columbia), who reports:

In Colombia the new-SSPX is allowing a priest doubtfully ordained with the new rite to offer PUBLIC Masses, hear Confessions and so on. He lives in the north of Colombia but I saw him saying Mass on the First Friday of this month in the new-SSPX Chapel in Bogotá. It was publicly broadcasted through their YouTube channel. Never the new-SSPX said this priest was conditionally ordained.

Doctrine gives way to policy, and the ralliement to the modernist pantheon is the supreme law in Menzingen. Be that as it may, I don’t quite see in this policy the respect for souls which the priestly life requires.

G. Conclusion:
The faithful have a decision to make: Comply with Church teaching, and avoid doubtful sacraments, or face the consequences. The proliferation of doubtfully ordained priests (and consecrated bishops) frequenting SSPX Mass venues is making this more and more difficult. Eventually, as the numbers of doubtfully ordained priests swell the ranks of the Society, it will become impossible to discern what is in the tabernacle, or what is in the holy oil vials, etc.
For 14 years, the SSPX clergy and faithful have sat quietly by, while Menzingen pulled the rug out from under them, and today they are starting to feel the consequences of their own apathy, being made to accept the ministrations of doubtful clergy. Bishop Williamson was expelled, and all said nothing. Hounder is placed next to Lefebvre in Econe (symbolic of the new orientation in Menzingen!), and still they said nothing.
Let them all drift off into conservative conciliarism, then. “Because you are lukewarm, I will vomit you out of my mouth.” But for those who are still concerned with such trivial things as sacramental validity, and have not stopped up their eyes from seeing the change in policy recounted in this article, your days in the SSPX pews are numbered. Its only a matter of time until my personal experience is repeated in your chapel.

1
Fr. Alvaro Calderon (SSPX professor at the seminary in La Reja, Argentina):
“But the positive and objective defects that this rite suffers, which prevent one from being certain of its validity, it seems to us that - until there is a Roman sentence, for which they would have to change many things - justify and make necessary the conditional reordination of priests consecrated by new bishops and, if necessary, the conditional re-consecration of these bishops. Such uncertainties cannot be suffered at the very root of the sacraments.”
(SiSiNoNo No. 267, November - 2014)
https://www.scribd.com/docuмent/270396261/Consagraciones-Episcopales-de-Pablo-VI-P-Calderon?ad_group=xxc1xx&campaign=VigLink&medium=affiliate&source=hp_affiliate&campaign=VigLink&ad_group=xxc1xx&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate
2
Felix Cappello, De Sacramentis, De Sacramentis, vol. 1, n. 25. Translated from Latin by Eric Hoyle, iIn Eric Hoyle, Priestly Ministry after the Vatican II Revolution: Confessional Jurisdiction – Long Version. Version 2.0, 6 Marhc 2022, pp 173-8. Citation provided by WM Review in the article cited below.
3
The WM Review
Can we receive doubtfully valid sacraments?
It's often assumed that Pope Innocent XI's condemnation applies to receiving doubtful sacraments, as well as administering them. But is this true…
Read more
8 months ago · 5 likes · 34 comments · S.D. Wright

4
https://dominicansavrille.us/questionable-priestly-ordinations-in-the-conciliar-church/
5
https://www.fathercekada.com/2013/11/28/sspx-bishops-on-bishops-and-bishops/comment-page-1/
6
One example of this would be their 2017 acceptance of Cardinal Muller’s guidelines for matrimony, whereby a conciliar authority receives the consent of the parties. In one well known instance in France, a couple refused to have their marriage performed by a priest who had received conciliar delegation, and instead opted to have it done by another Society priest who did not. Upon discovery, the French District applied for a sanatio in radice to the conciliar authority. And ever since then, as a matter of policy, delegations are performed at the District level for all SSPX weddings in France. Obviously, if the SSPX felt the need to apply for a sanation from the diocese, it strongly suggests they now doubt the status of all their previous marriages performed on the basis of supplied jurisdiction.
7
https://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2025/07/entrevista-al-padre-fabio-calixto.html
8
https://dominicansavrille.us/conciliar-bishops-in-schools-of-tradition/
9
https://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2025/07/entrevista-al-padre-fabio-calixto.html
10
https://www.medias-presse.info/le-superieur-du-district-dafrique-revendique-sa-demande-de-faire-appel-a-des-pretres-conciliaires-ou-ecclesiadeistes-pour-desservir-les-fideles-de-la-fsspx/112679/
11
https://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2025/07/entrevista-al-padre-fabio-calixto.html

---

Subscribe to The Seraphim
By Sean Johnson · Launched 22 days ago
Welcome to The Seraphim, where you will find original articles and analyses regarding various aspects of the Church crisis, from a "sede-doubtist" perspective.

Growing number of bills requiring fetal development education are being introduced — and signed into law
Since 2023, when North Dakota passed the nation's first fetal development education law, dozens anti-abortion legislators have sponsored similar bills.

source:

• Butrymowicz, Sarah. “The New Anti-Abortion Strategy: Fetal Development Videos in Schools.” The Hechinger Report, August 5, 2025.

cf.2025 SIECUS "Baby Olivia" and Anti-Abortion Indoctrination Legislation Tracker

Don't let Borat the Troll suck you in, as these clowns try to dishonestly shift the burden of proving invalidity onto those who assert positive doubt.  We need only demonstrate positive doubt ... which is amply demonstrated to any but the most intellectually dishonest liars.  Borat gives reasons for why the Rites MIGHT be valid, but that does not suffice, not only to eliminate positive doubt, but much less to make it so that conditional ordinations would somehow be illicit.  Borat and his/her ilk must prove that the Rite are valid beyond any prudent or reasonable doubt in order to hold that conditional ordinations would not be licit.  So, the mere fact that these threads debating the issue go on for pages clearly demonstrate a reasonable and prudent foundation for doubt, rendering conditional ordinations quite licit, and even mandatory.

Even if they're merely licit, give the catastrophic consequences if they're wrong and also given the turbulence they're creating among the consciences of the faithful, there's no justification whatsoever for NOT performing the conditional ordinations.

Bottom line is just that they're desperate to get regularized by the Conciliar Sect.  That's it.  That's the only reason.  Then they proceed to make up all kinds of excuses and justifications for it after the fact.

With regard to consecrations, the term "governing spirit" is meaningless and nonsensical, but even if out of desperation you try to claim that it's some kind of concatenation of the Holy Spirit who then provides some power to govern to someone else, episcopal consecration doesn't inherently require the transmission of any type of episcopal authority, as auxiliary (chor) bishops lack any governing.  In fact, as Father Cekada points out, the closest similarity to the Eastern Rites actually is to the installation of a Patriach, who's generally presumed to already be a bishops (as it would have been rare for someone to go from priest to Patriarch without a stop at bishop first).

Borat could very well be a neo-SSPX priest, and one of those aforementioned presbyters himself, and perhaps also a member of the lavender mafia, thus explaining the LARPing as a female and making a big deal out of wearing a skirt. 

In either case, it's 100% certain that Borat has some personal vested interest in the position he's promoting and isn't merely following the dictates of reason and logic, which heavily favor those asserting positive doubt.

I am sorry to chime in here but I just want to set the record straight on the skirt issue.  There was a discussion about women wearing pants. See https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/womens-pants/  On that thread some of the men said that if you wear a pants in any situation then you are a feminist.  Boru works with horses and sometimes might wear pants for very specific things.  She was just commenting on the fact that she does wear a skirt most of the time, even while mowing the lawn.  Unlike guys, women have a tendency to relate everything to everything.  See https://www.cathinfo.com/teen-catholic-hangout/a-tale-of-two-brains/

I am glad that Boru didn't take your ill-founded statements to heart and respond emotionally, but you guys know me.

Mexican citizens residing in U.S. can vote in both U.S. elections and Mexico elections. The Mexican Consulate in L.A. facilitates their voting in Mexican elections.

Funny, but if I lived in Mexico, I would never be allowed to vote in their elections.

Yes, if they're dual citizens.