CathInfo.com

.
It seems to me there is a third issue, one which applies to all "mainstream" ordinations.
.
I have seen sedevacantist priests questioning the validity of other priests solely on the basis of the date of their ordination when it was under the local diocese. If they were ordained after 1969 these sedes presume it was invalid because of the change in the form of priestly ordination in 1969.
.
Similarly, for episcopal consecrations they draw the line at 1968 because the form was changed in that year. Pope Francis is therefore subject to criticism on BOTH counts because he was ordained a priest after 1969 and consecrated a bishop after 1968. Consequently the CMRI (as well as others) clerics claim that he is not a pope because he is not a bishop nor is he even a priest.
.

That is certainly an issue. A man who the SSPX factions all unswervingly proclaim is the Pope of the Catholic Church and yet they have not seen fit to investigate whether or not his orders are valid. Why has this not been researched thoroughly as the whole of Christendom has the right to know with certainty if the head of the Church is even a valid cleric?

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.

No personal attack intended.
Fr. M provided his lineage and the lineage of the ordination bishop, all the way back to a.b. Thuc.  
I just don't see that it is reasonable for fr. M to have to provide a copy of the ordaining bishops consecration paperwork.  

This is one priest who is apparently going back to Africa to minister, What about all of the indult priests whose ordaining Bishops might be invalid? Many traditionalists find these men to be an interchangeable options with the SSPX for the sacraments. No one seems to be at all concerned about this.

Is it only those individuals who have had any relationship to Boston KY. who rate such demanding scrutiny?

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?

Seriously, it applies to everyone in all groups, without exception. Anyone with doubtful orders is a problem for Catholics. Rule Number One in Traditional Catholicism is "make sure your priest was validly ordained". That's the reason we left behind the Novus Ordo, for crying out loud! The uncertainty, the dangers, the defects. And we have a certain option, which we are obligated to seek out at all costs -- even to the point of staying home if all we can find is Novus Ordo. We have an obligation to not put our Faith in danger. And we have a right to certainty when it comes to Mass and the Sacraments.

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.

An expression comes to mind: "Lipstick on a pig". Also, "A donkey in a suit is still a donkey."

I actually can't believe how many SSPX-raised Catholics "don't get it" when it comes to Tradition, and what the SSPX was all about. I know of several families who now attend the INDULT (not ICK, FSSP, or some "dedicated" pseudo-trad organization). The priests there are varying degrees of unsuitable, especially compared with any SSPX priest (yes, even today!) And yet -- a few families think they are equivalent.
Such people I would describe as "Latin Mass" Catholics, but not Traditional Catholic.