Tradplorable has been banned.

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

.
One problem with this post is this:  Fr. Francois Chazal is not going to "call in Moran to ordain his seminarians."
.
To the extent that your line of reasoning relies on that as a principle, it fails, because it's invalid, it's not going to happen.
.

A seminarian isn't a prisoner with no rights.  If he doesn't trust that a bishop is valid, he can just leave the seminary or study house, or wherever he is.  This assumes he's already asked for evidence of his own concerning the bishop, and has been refused or given little answer.  If he blindly trusts his seminary director concerning a bishop, it makes me wonder about the common sense level and 'street smarts' of the seminarian.

Secondly, there's 2 issues here, which are being co-mingled.  1) the validity of the priest and 2) the validity of the bishop who consecrated the priest.  It seems that in this case, there are doubts about both the priest and the bishop, therefore evidence and an explanation is doubly important.

Let me try my hand at the "to what extent" question-- it's a good one.  The same extent that we ask questions about Francis from Nigeria applies to all traditional clergy, as far as I'm concerned.

Let's say Francis comes on CI and says he's been ordained a priest by a traditional bishop-- say, Bishop Pivarunas (not going to say Fellay or Williamson because that's too charged-- we'll use an "outsider" for the example).  We say, "let's see the proof."  He provides a certificate, or a picture.  Is that that?

It is if we've independently verified that Pivarunas is a Bishop. And we have.  He publicly (i.e., there's certificates, witnesses, etc. available for anyone who looks into it) received the episcopacy from Bishop Moises Carmona.  He was ordained to the priesthood (again with the necessary proofs) by Bishop George Musey.  Then we can (and should) ask the same question about Carmona.  Again, we find that in the early eighties he was consecrated by Archbishop Thuc in a small ceremony, but with witnesses and the required docuмentation.

And all doubts are resolved.  It wasn't hard, either, because a) the lineage is fairly direct and b) those involved have made sure that the information is out there.  

All we're doing is asking the same questions of Francis and his lineage.  The problem of the extent of this inquiry is hardly our fault; it's owed to the fact that there are half a dozen relatively obscure (especially for English-speaking Catholics) Thuc "sub consecrations" before one gets to Adamson and Francis.