CathInfo.com

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.

Very important questions!

I think, psychologically, the warfare that we catholics have endured against Rome and the confusion and chaos caused by the modernists leave us all overwhelmed and it's easy to lose grip of reality when 95% of the world is crazy, religiously speaking.  We look at the situation in the new church and it's hard to fathom the truth -

1.  that EVERY novus ordo mass is illicit (therefore sinful), that most are invalid (sinful), that most (all?) are sacrilgious (sinful by atmostphere). 

2.  that EVERY novus ordo priest's ordination (post 1960s) is doubtful.  And their seminary training is highly suspect and deficient.

3.  that EVERY novus ordo bishop's consecration is doubtful, as well as seminary training.

4.  that EVERY traditional ("indult") mass said by novus ordo priests is doubtful, because the priest is doubtful and because his training in SAYING the mass is doubtful.

5.  that EVERY "indult" mass is morally wrong (in my opinion) because it publicly condones/accepts the sacrilegious and illicit new mass.


Doubt, doubt, doubt...problems, problems, problems...everywhere.  In all areas of the church, in all countries, in all dioceses.  The evidence is overwhelming.

Then you start to wonder (at least I do):  "Am I being too strict?  Too damning of these doubts?  I mean, after all, a doubt holds the possibility of being wrong, right?  So maybe the Church isn't as bad off as we think?"

Sadly, it's not the case.  We must reject newrome's program wholeheartedly, else we compromise our Faith.

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.

No he didn't. I have personally heard him say that he thought Pablo's actions regarding this issue and many others were inappropriate and wrong. Be carefull when judging others' intentions.

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.

.
You're welcome, JPaul.
.
I was surprised Matthew presumed the worst of your meaning, but it seems he was shooting from the hip. There are a lot of battles to fight and he's sensitive to particular ones, so your slightly ambiguous wording gave him an opportunity to launch another reaction, which is what he did. Not a bad reaction, really. Formation of priests is a HUGE topic and very important.
.
I found it interesting that in your reply, above you mention the incessant demise of Tradition currently afoot:
.
"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."
.
This caught my eye because I saw a rather detailed article about this very thing, how the Pope -- errr, "bishop of rome" --- is deliberately passing over recommended priests for episcopal consecration in favor of certain ultra-liberal priests who are recommended to him merely by a single comment from a fellow Jesuit, in other words, he is throwing tradition out the window in order to overturn everything in sight: 
.
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com.au/2017/11/pope-ignores-congregation-of-bishops-in.html
.
One relevant segment:
.

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.