No, these are done privately. I've heard many a story of seminarians in Winona when BpW or Econe when BpT were in those seminaries, that seminarians would be cornered and told to prepare such-and-such an altar at such-and-such a time for a conditional ordination. One priest told me that the joke about the half day in Econe on Wednesdays was for BpT to perform conditional ordinations in Our Lady of the Fields while the seminarians were out. 

The reason for keeping such an important business a secret is still a mystery to me.

Agreed. Without conditional ordinations, the SSPX is no different to any indult groups

Well, even in the past they were semi-public, meaning that they'd answer your question if you asked a priest or the bishop or their superior, etc. "Are you conditionally ordained?"

But they've never published who's who in any kind of formal place.

I'll share with you a story about early 1990s Winona (Bishop Williamson was still rector).  There was a certain "Father"[?] Bibeau who just showed up there one day and was saying Mass at the main altar.  We always kept a copy of Cor Unum around, a directory of SSPX priests, to see if it said they had been ordained SSPX.  Well, this new "priest" wasn't in there.  So some of us went around making inquiries.  We eventually found out that Father Bibeau had in fact been conditionally ordained by Bishop Williamson in Our Lady's chapel (second floor).  While it was private, the sacristan in charge reported that he was told to set up for a conditional ordination ... and then we found out who the target had been.  Even back then, you had to make inquiries very discreetly, since the entire stink from "The Nine" was still fresh, having taken place merely 5-6 years prior to my arrival there.  So if you were open about your "questions", you'd be suspected of being an SV-sympathizer if not an SV.  So, my brother Steve had been in this group, except not at al SV, just had problems with the NO Orders, despite being decidedly R&R.  Yet even he had to be very quiet about it, for these reasons.  Steve was one of the main MCs at the seminary during his day, and he'd often hold the Missal during ceremonies, and there was one ordination in general where the bishops opened by banishing the "schismatici", and Steve, while holding the Missale, looked sideways to the other seminarians who knew his views, making a smirk, causing them all to crack up ... since the allegaion was that only "schismatics" questioned the NO Holy Orders, i.e. that was the current gaslighting at that time.

Eventually my brother Steve, after finishing 4 years and having had no issues, was shipped out to St. Mary's.  Why?  Well, he told a spiritual director at a retreat in Los Gatos (one summer during seminary) that he was concerned that his spiritual director was a Modernist.  Despite spiritual direction being indirectly covered by the seal of Confession, this priest relayed / leaked this information back to the seminary staff ... at which time Steve was banished to St. Mary's to "consider" his vocation.  Realizing he was being railroaded, he ended up leaving St. Mary's, leaving him dejected and extremely sad.  That's to say nothing of the extreme scandal of a spiritual director leaking information to the seminary staff.

So, the identity of his spiritual director that Steve denounced as suspect of Modernism?

One Carlos Urrutigoity ... who ABSOLUTELY was a Modernist.  100%.  I myself had denounced him as such to Fr. Bourmaud, God rest his soul, when on one occasion Bishop Williamson was out of town and he was acting rector.  Urrutigoity was engaging in various liturgical experimentations that had been banned by the Council of Trent (troped Kyries) and also wanting to admit women into the choir.  Fr. Bourmaud put an immediate stop to that, but it showed U's true colors.  He's done and said many things that indicate he was a Modernist and no Traditional Catholic, just going Trad in order to get better cover for his predation.  In fact, you KNOW you have something warped about your theological system when you can morally justify that kind of behavior.

From a phone call interview I made to the SSPX in 2019:

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.

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.

What authority does the Society have to discern someone's internal intention? They have no way of knowing, and, more importantly, it has no bearing on the validity of the sacraments. And this is the most common reason for supplying conditional ordinations? That's nuts!

What authority does the Society have to discern someone's internal intention? They have no way of knowing, and, more importantly, it has no bearing on the validity of the sacraments. And this is the most common reason for supplying conditional ordinations? That's nuts!

Ya got me, far as I am concerned the rule should be that every NO priest gets schooled, trained and conditionally ordained 100% of the time. 

 

SSPX if they were honest and logical in their sacramental theology: "Yes, Holy Father, we want to be regularised under your authority. But, yes, Holy Father, we hold you to be merely a layman. So, yes, Holy Father, you are not really the Holy Father because you lack the episcopacy. But, yes, Holy Father, we recognise you as Holy Father and hope to be regularised under your authority."

Do you see what this would do to their current relationship and their goal of a near-future reunion with the Modernists in Rome?

Most in the SSPX would rather you attend a Novos Ordo mass, than you express serious doubts about the new sacraments.