Does the SSPX perform conditional ordinations, of Novus Ordo priests who want to join the SSPX, anymore?

Did you happen to ask how or on what basis they determine whether the ordinations are invalid or doubtful? Just mildly curious as I believe that even the original form of the new rite is invalid, but you know that.

I didn't ask him that, but I've asked other SSPX priests that they all answered pretty much the same - they basically said that the investigations are as exhaustive as they need to be. Often times they are able to watch videos of the ordinations, I would think those would be the best help to any investigation.

It helps to remember that the SSPX really do not want invalidly ordained priests any more than we do - or any more that the priests themselves for that matter - so there is every reason to believe they are as thorough or more thorough in their investigations than even you or I might be. But they must investigate, they cannot make the rule to simply re-ordain across the board unless they first can prove doubt or invalidity. The SSPX has never fully trusted NO ordinations.

Imagine being a NO priest finding out about the whole crisis, I cannot imagine any NO priest leaving the NO and coming to tradition who is not extremely anxious to make certain his ordination either was valid or if unsure, will be made valid via a conditional ordination first and foremost.

Oh, I thought it was the Bishop who consecrated the Bishop who ordained the Priest that had to be looked at; that the consecration was effected before the 1968 changes when the Bishop had the power given to him to ordain. Does the SSPX look at that? Plus, what's the harm of a conditional ordination? If the first one was valid then there is no effect . It's just to make certain- no one should balk at that.

They are not supposed to just conditionally ordain indiscriminately, reference Trent's catechism speaking of conditional baptism, to just conditionally ordain indiscriminately would still be a sacrilege whether it's baptism or Holy Orders - no? It must be, otherwise why investigate at all?




Trent's catechism:

Nor let anyone suppose that it is repeated by the Church when she baptises anyone whose previous Baptism was doubtful, making use of this formula: If thou art baptised, I baptise thee not again but if thou art not yet baptised, I baptise thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. In such cases Baptism is not to be considered as impiously repeated, but as holily, yet conditionally, administered.

In this connection, however, there are some matters, in which, to the very great injury of the Sacrament, abuses are of almost daily occurrence, and which therefore demand the diligent attention of pastors. For there are not wanting those who think that no sin is committed if they indiscriminately administer conditional Baptism. Hence if an infant be brought to them, they think that no inquiry need be made as to whether it was previously baptised, but proceed immediately to baptise the child. Nay more, although they be well aware that the Sacrament was administered at home, they do not hesitate to repeat its administration in the Church conditionally, making use of the solemn ceremonies of the Church.

This certainly they cannot do without sacrilege and without incurring what theologians call an irregularity. According to the authority of Pope Alexander the conditional form of Baptism is to be used only when after due inquiry doubts are entertained as to the validity of the previous Baptism. In no other case is it ever lawful to administer Baptism a second time, even conditionally.

He said the SSPX perform the investigation while the NO priests are being re-formed / re-trained to celebrate the TLM and in traditional theology / teachings, they are then conditionally ordained before they are allowed to celebrate the TLM - same as always.

The "same as always" or the "same as the Novus Ordo would do"?

Meaning the SSPX still investigates each case these days, just as they have always investigated each case.

They don't. If a Novus-Ordo-ordained priest asked to be conditionally ordained, they will do it, but if the convert is satisfied, they don't.

Even worse, the SSPX accept all Novus Ordo baptisms as valid, which is a terrible prospect for their clergy.... men entering their seminaries since about 1990.

I posted the information I got from SSPX priests, which rumor mill did you get your information from?

The same rumor mill as yours.

There is no reason a priori to doubt the validity of the Novus Ordo Baptisms because the essentials have not changed (this applies to Penance and Matrimony as well). The doubt only concerns the other 4 new Sacraments: Confirmation, Eucharist, Extreme Unction, and Orders.

You wish, but it is the case, nevertheless.

The new rite of baptism does not ensure that water is poured on the head, which is cause to doubt, unless and until investigation gives positive evidence of validity.

As well, a separate cause, the Novus Ordo are inclined to be negligent and experimental, this alone is enough to consider it doubtful, until investigation give positive evidence of validity. This is the same reason all Protestant rites are considered doubtful, even if the sect uses the traditional Catholic rite of baptism. It's on the books.

You have it backwards. The Novus Ordo Baptisms are considered valid in general until it is proven otherwise (this, is "until investigation gives positive evidence of invalidity" in particular cases).

We have gone through this before.

If you insist on believing the V2 papal claimants have been true popes, then, yes, you would presume validity. Unfortunately, the facts surrounding these men make them easily doubtful as popes.