This sounds like an addiction to me.

There's a big difference between getting really, really into something and being addicted.  Some people (especially introverts) are able to fully immerse themselves into a topic and not be addicted.  You can be temporarily obsessed with something but not be addicted.  God created this personality type, so it's not wrong.  But it must be moderated.


On the opposite end of the spectrum (extroverts) are those people who hate studying and struggle very much with things that are intellectual.  Are we to label all of these people lazy and stupid?  No, they just think/react more to tangible things, instead of the abstract.  They are the types that react to stimuli of the senses (i.e. people, conversations) instead of ideas and thinking.

People nowadays throw around the word addiction way too often.

I agree, archbishop Lefevbre was so patient, kind, had a great self-control, like a real saintly man.
I know I overeacted, didn't mean it seriously. But I had experienced many back stabbings and betrayals from closest family members in last couple of years. And also when I realized how I was deprived of true faith, sacraments, believing that modernism is Catholicism for centuries, I went to Medjugorje and believed in that too for most of my life. And when I realize it's all fake, fake history classes too.

What a red pill awakening!

Yes, with such levels of deception, disappointment, and betrayal, it can make one go crazy, and lose ALL trust, even in good people. DON'T LET THE DEVIL AND HIS SERVANTS WIN.

Don't let them demoralize you into despair.

We must hold on to our ability to LOVE, embrace TRUTH though it's harder to find now, and TRUST even though saints are rare now. Despite such betrayals.

There are still good men on earth, whose goodness worthy of love, not hate. Their goodness comes from God of course, not themselves. There is still truth out there, even if it takes EFFORT to discover it in a sea of error and seize it. It's not all hopeless. Just challenging.

Remember, God placed you HERE, and not in any other time. He must have equipped you with what you NEED to survive spiritually, emotionally, mentally in this time period. God is just and fair. He doesn't expect the impossible.

What joy to conceive and bring into this world your beautiful daughter, Laura.

I’ve run out of upthumbs for you, Bl. Alojzije.

Yeah, and she is funny, real God's gift and blessing. I'm worried though raising up children in world like this, but I have faith and hope. We'll try to do our best, sadly my wife is not a trad Catholic, she has feminist spirit to a lesser degree. Nobody is perfect, we can't do nothing good without Jesus Christ. 

I should have been clearer. 

Assuming the New Rite of Ordination is doubtful/invalid (which is what I think the OP really thinks), find out what a priest who thinks similarly would think about what to do with past sins confessed to a NO priest.

So far it doesn't sound like the OP has spoken with a priest about what he/she needs to do assuming the NO ordination is doubtful.

I wasn't referring to getting another opinion on the validity of the rite.

OK, but the question of whether someone has an obligation to re-confess these past sins is going to be a direct corollary to the opinion regarding the validity of the rite.  If someone holds that the new rite (or Orders) is certainly invalid or at least positively doubtful, then they'd hold the person has to confess the sins again.  If someone holds that it's valid or that the doubt is only negative, they'd hold that there's no obligation to re-confess.  There is, however, also, the additional complexity that some of the confessions may have been valid since, as Elwin pointed out, not all NO priests are invalid or doubtful (since there are still some older ones floating around out there, and the farther back OP's confessions go in time, the more likely it is that some of them were to unquestionably valid priests).  So I don't see how any opinion regarding the obligation to re-confess past sins can be separated cleanly from one's opinion regarding the validity of NO Orders.

OP, I was going to suggest asking your priest, but then realized that that priest probably thinks the New Rite orders are valid.  Do you have access to /Can you contact a Resistance or Sede priest?  If so, I would get their opinion.  I think they would probably recommend some sort of general confession.

What's the point of getting another opinion from a different priest?  That puts a layman in the position of adjudicating between the opinions of diferent priests, and so therefore it's meaningless to get different opinions (since you know they're out there), and it would ultimately come down to your own opinion anyway, at the end of the day and in the final analysis.  I believe I recall Bishop Sanborn stating that the faithful could just go with the opinion of the priest they approach and have ready access to ... and are not obliged to go "opinion shopping" until they get one that conforms to their own ideas.  At that point, you might as well just go with what you think, since that's what it'll boil down to anyway if you go from one priest to another getting different opinions.

OP already KNOWS that there are differing opinions about the matter out there.