Yes, just Boston, KY. You know, the one I have a grudge against. It's all about my hatred for Fr. Pfeiffer and his organization.


Is that really how you thought I would answer?

...

As a matter of fact, you're dead wrong that "no one has a problem with this". That is in fact my main problem with the Indult. The problem with Indult (and even Rome-approved groups) is the FORMATION of the priests. In the case of Summorum Pontificuм/Indult, almost without exception, you're talking about a Novus Ordo priest who learned to say the Latin Mass on his own. That does NOT make a "Traditional Catholic" priest.

...

If Fr Francis Mbadugha is returning to Nigeria, perhaps he should link up with Fr Bede Nkamuke of the St Gertrude the Great group of Cincinnati, who is already ministering there. Apart from comradeship, he will have the theological resources of Bishops Dolan and Sanborn, and Fr Cekada to draw upon.
http://www.sgg.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Newsletter156.pdf

We see and admit to the grave importance of validity when dealing with the Priesthood. And so much has been offered in these last posts as to the necessity of obtaining an adequate amount of certainty of a priest's validity before proceeding.

This brings directly to light the New York debacle and the unsound advice which issued forth from it.

When giving Catholics an opening to attend the Novus Ordo and recieve its miraculous sacraments, it appears that there was no talk of acertaining a New Order priest's proof of validity before going there.
What seemed to qualify as sufficient is how the priest appeared to celebrate the "mass".

The validity of any given conciliar priest is suspect in that there is no way to know who is and who isn't a priest without properly researching his background.  So if validity is of such high importance(and it is), why on Earth was that not spoken of as a pre-requisite for attending an illicit service (i.e. novus ordo mass) in which there is a known danger of invalidity?  How does that square with what is being said here about the importance of validity, and when there is no less a question or a doubt generated by a Novus ordo ordination than there might be by an Ambrose Moran ordination.

This is clearly a double standard which is at work here, and such a standard relies upon only part of the truth being presented. It cannot work when the whole of the truth is considered because it is exposed for what it is.

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.

I was certainly not speaking about Matthew as such, but rather Traditional groups in general who whenever they are in conflict with another faction become very agitated over issues such as validity etc. while in the main they never start or contribute to a thread condemning  much greater problems of conciliar validity which range from it false rituals, sacraments, priests, Bishops, and in the current sense its pope.
"Oh, but we've done that so many times before" is what you will hear. Well has it gotten any better or less problematic for the legitimacy of the Church's mission or sacraments? No, and as time goes on it becomes worse and worse as more questionable priests are "ordained" and move up to be appointed as "bishops" and possibly ordain yet more doubtful priests until the whole of validity and orthodoxy become dilute.
Frankly, I do not concern myself with the factions calling each other names anymore. The names that they call themselves or others are meaningless. Fake or real? Resistance is a word that would have been relevant directly after the council when it was implementing the revolution but which has now been consolidated and institutionalized. Today it means nothing except skimishing with another faction over how to do a deal with the revolutionaries.
There is no organized clerical effort or movement which is devoted to countering the council and breaking the hold of the infidel over the Church, which would do battle with the apostate pontiffs and the heretical Bishops directly.  Resistance is an anemic and weak word to use in these times, but if one must use it, there is no true resistance in the Church.  The sedes might be part of the way there but they are still ineffective.
My original point is that recently there are always two to five active threads lambasting some part or activities of the Boston sect. That is somewhat understandable because Fr. Pfeiffer et al have criticized Bishop Williamson, and his Bishops.  In some cases that is justified, but regardless, it plays to a hostile audience on CI, and offends the Bishops supporters, but Boston Ky is a relatively small miniscule operation, and I wonder why it is given so much attention with other more pressing matters are at hand?

But issues such as priestly validity and sacramental validity are far bigger than these things and should always be even handed because they do not only apply to a group which might be out of favor but apply to all segments of the Church at the same time and in the same measure, and should be seen and handled in that way. The places where the corruption is the most active and serious need priority attention.

It does seem that the neo-Traditional movement is sometimes chasing its tail while Rome continues to burn.

Thank you N.O. for presuming good will as my intention. You were not mistaken.

Pope Francis is looking for "the most progressive candidates". 

"It is disturbing because it is the task of Cardinal Ouellet in Rome to propose the name to the Pope, but he ignores it and opts for completely different candidates".

A few days earlier La Croix had written:

"It has already happened that Pope Francis rejected all three of the names presented to him by Cardinal Marc Ouellet, Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops, [...] and even sought others from his direction."

In order to seek "others from his own direction," the Pope, in order to obtain information, makes use of the Jesuit order. The decisive factor for Francis, according to Pronkin, is the progressive attitude of the candidate, which must be confirmed to him by a confidant. This confirmation is sufficient. The Pope would then need no dossiers and reports, as presented to him by the Congregation of Bishops. The recommendation of a person whom he trusts is enough to make someone a bishop. 

.
So if Fr. Pfeiffer is aware of Pablo's inappropriate and wrong actions, then why is Pablo still in charge of the seminary?
.
What does this say of Fr. Pfeiffer's "intentions" when he leaves a QUESTIONABLE man in charge when he's out of town?
.

Archbishop Lefebvre, all the SSPX bishops, the Resistance bishops, all the sedevacantist prelates and clergy, tens of thousands of Faithful over the past 50 years -- they all just "don't get it". I know exactly what we need to do, and no one's doing it...