We're having some of the same arguments we had back during the Ambrose Moran debacle (God has blessed me with a good memory, which I am trying to use for good purposes, like the welfare of the faithful remnant of Traditional Catholics everywhere)

Some people think it's "mean" or "uncharitable" to put prospective priests or bishops "through the ringer" -- but that is not Catholic thought. That is sentimentalism (if it's the layman's idea) and if such thinking comes from the priest/bishop himself, it's cultism and tyranny.

We normally don't put priests through the ringer IN NORMAL TIMES. When everything is done officially by the Church, then it's all none of our business. A priest shows up, we submit to him. That is healthy and Catholic -- in normal times. Might I point out that complete submission to the Pope is also normally a healthy Catholic behavior? But again, these are not normal times. Hello, McFly!!!

Words "Crisis in the Church" mean anything to you??

When priests get formed, trained, ordained outside official structures, the Faithful need certainty about their priests. In fact, one of the main justifications for the Traditional movement is that the Faithful have a God-given right to 100% certain Sacraments, and Sacraments that won't risk or tend to destroy their Faith itself. One can argue about the validity of Novus Ordo Masses and sacraments, but one CANNOT say that Novus Ordo ordinations/Masses/sacraments are 100% certain. And that alone is enough reason to leave them by the wayside and seek out true Sacraments from traditional priests wherever they can get them -- which is basically the charter and foundation of the Traditional Movement.

If you confess a mortal sin to an "impostor", or a man who is not a priest (though he might look and act like one), that sin is not forgiven. We're talking about more than just life and death here, folks. We're talking about eternal heaven and hell!

So yes, it's important, and any well-trained priest would be the first to agree with me, Mithrandylan, and Sean Johnson. I notice all the ex-seminarians are lining up behind Mithrandylan's last post...

If Fr. Francis isn't the first to want to prove his Consecrator's validity, or doesn't understand why we Traditional Catholics are concerned with such, then he obviously received an inferior Seminary training, and perhaps it's best that we collectively allocate this priest to deathbeds and emergencies only (when no other priest is available)...

As Mithrandylan also wisely pointed out, validity is the most important concern. But even if that were proven (which it hasn't been), there is still the huge elephant in the room -- this priest's foolish choice of OLMC "seminary" for his priestly training.

And don't give me, "Come on, what choice did he have?"

If he had opted to self-study with a pile of pre-Vatican II Catholic books (the Summa, Denzinger, The Spiritual Life by Fr. Tanqueray, moral theology, all the classics written by saints, etc.) and did an apprenticeship with some bishop or priest, then I would have WAY more respect for his judgement, intellect, and wisdom.

But OLMC? Seriously? Who gives a place like that respect enough to spend several years there? It's a complete joke to anyone with a brain. I mean, this man was bossed around by Pablo for years. He drank the Pfeifferville Kool-aid for years. And he stayed for a long time! He thought it was appropriate and fine for an apostate, superstitious man (with no seminary or theological training whatsoever) to regularly be in charge of a seminary.

That speaks to a certain deficiency.

To give JUST ONE example of Pfeifferville Kool-aid which any normal intellect would gag on: "Bishop Williamson and Bishop Zendejas are bad. But Ambrose Moran is good!"  and let's not forget, "All ye true Traditional Catholics: you must only attend Mass by Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Hewko, or a priest on good terms with us. After all, we ARE the Church!" I don't care if he actually said those very words; that is precisely his doctrine, proven by his countless words and actions.

P.S.

Knowing the Internet population, I have to make everything explicit.

I have nothing against Fr. Francis personally. This is all about Catholic doctrine. I'm sure he's very "nithe" and says his prayers. I'm sure he's very pious.

But I'm with St. Teresa of Avila on this matter -- she would rather have a LEARNED spiritual director than a PIOUS one. And in 2017 she'd be even more adamant about it. In this confusing world with a Crisis in the Church, we need wise, prudent priests, priests of sound judgment. Priests who can untangle in the confessional the complicated matters we laymen have to deal with. Priests who can guide us through this wilderness -- to help us be as wise as serpents but simple as doves. Priests to point out all the traps and deceptions of the devil during this time of "diabolical disorientation".

Excellent 2007 SSPX article on conditional ordination:

http://sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained

I don't think it necessarily has to do with dubious lineage. I have personally come across two independent priests over the years in the USA that I would wager you and nobody else here at CI knows about. They were just old, Novus Ordo priests who left the N.O. and went out on their own sometime after VII. I wonder who confirms their faithful? There's probably others.

Well said. 

Yes, Matthew, but to what extent?
In my dealings with priests, I ask for lineage, confirm lineage, and evaluate.  I dont ask them for docuмentation proving that the ceremonies of his bishop up through the pre-vat II bishop occurred.

Now, I would assume a priest/prior would check the lineage docuмentation of a boshop for his seminarians.  Do the seminarians really have a choice of bishop?  No.  If fr. Chazal calls in Moran to ordain his seminarians, do the seminarians have a choice in the matter?  I guess they could leave, but they are supposed to trust father prior's judgement.

It seems to me that fr. Mbadugha answered the question when IH said that he obeyed the priest he was working under.  The lineage was provided.  If you are so inclined, one could, himself, contact b. Adamson and ask for proof.  But the rest of us should, as fr. M did, assume that fr. M's superior did his homework and verified the lineage via docuмentation.

Also, it was said that fr. M tried several times to leave OLMC.  Why he wanted to leave and why he stayed you will have to ask him.  Why he went to OLMC in the first place, you will have to ask him.  

Perhaps rather than jumping to conclusions and causing detraction and/or scandal you should ask Fr. M your questions

Until anyone here has inquired answers of the new priest, most of what is said here remains speculation. While there is serious doubt about the bishop because he is a sedevacantist, there very will could be more to know before drawing conclusions.

Nice thinly-veiled personal attack against several CI members (and especially the moderator, who allows this thread), but no thanks.

The fact is that it is physically impossible to "detract" a priest about this particular matter: the question of his validity.

The validity of a priest is a PUBLIC matter, according to the Catholic Church. It is not:

* a private matter
* none of most people's business
* something we should not speculate about
* something we should give "benefit of the doubt" on
* something we should presume, until proven otherwise
* possible matter for detraction
* possible matter for slander (now we're *lying* about him, just by asking for proof of his ordination!?)

And we haven't declared his ordination invalid. Merely stated the FACT that he has no sufficiently proven or provided the validity of his ordaining bishop.

"Thuc-line bishop" is not, and CANNOT BE, an instant ticket to validity. Even the most die-hard sedevacantist has to agree with that. One might as well say, "Independent priest? he's surely valid then!"
There is simply too much variety in that category.