Anyone here know the current status of this priest?  Is he back with the Novus Ordo?  

I read that he was originally a NO priest, but he states that he was conditionally re-ordained by Bishop Williamson.  I have also seen a picture of him with Bishop Williamson (and other priests) in 1995.  However, I have also read that he was with the Minnesota diocese as of 5/99.

Back in the day, he founded the St. Robert Bellarmine independent chapel in St. Cloud, MN.

He was "suspended" for founding that chapel by the local bishop, and because of scruples, has honored that "suspension" ever since.

Eventually, he handed it over to the SSPX.

He is still friends with the SSPX, but his ministry is largely reduced -because of scrupulously/legalistically honoring the "suspension"- to making sick calls and saying private Masses.

Such has been the case for the last 20+ years.

He was once the man who translated the SiSiNoNo into English.

He is also the priest, ironically, who helped me through my own scruples by showing me the arguments in defense of the 1988 consecrations contained in this 2-part series:

https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_July/The_1988_Consecrations.htm

https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm

[As an aside, these SiSiNoNo articles were written by an Italian nun]

Last I heard a few years ago, Fr. Belland was living at a retirement home in the St. CLoud, MN area (I believe he is only in his 60's).

So as regards his status, he is in a limbo of sorts: No Novus Ordo ministry (except maybe sick calls), but no traditional ministry (except sick calls, private Masses).  

He is more or less "sidelined" because of the scruples, which hinder him from going one way or the other.

So I am still confused.  Was he a diocesan priest or a Resistance/SSPX priest?

Back in the day, he founded the St. Robert Bellarmine independent chapel in St. Cloud, MN.

He was "suspended" for founding that chapel by the local bishop, and because of scruples, has honored that "suspension" ever since.

Eventually, he handed it over to the SSPX.

He is still friends with the SSPX, but his ministry is largely reduced -because of scrupulously/legalistically honoring the "suspension"- to making sick calls and saying private Masses.

Such has been the case for the last 20+ years.

He was once the man who translated the SiSiNoNo into English.

He is also the priest, ironically, who helped me through my own scruples by showing me the arguments in defense of the 1988 consecrations contained in this 2-part series:

https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_July/The_1988_Consecrations.htm

https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm

[As an aside, these SiSiNoNo articles were written by an Italian nun]

Last I heard a few years ago, Fr. Belland was living at a retirement home in the St. CLoud, MN area (I believe he is only in his 60's).

So as regards his status, he is in a limbo of sorts: No Novus Ordo ministry (except maybe sick calls), but no traditional ministry (except sick calls, private Masses).  

He is more or less "sidelined" because of the scruples, which hinder him from going one way or the other.

Ps: I think he is also a canon lawyer (?), and I am betting his juridical training is to blame for his scruples (ie., too bound up in laws written for ordinary times and circuмstances).

The interesting thing is that the two articles linked above (and which he directed me to), provide the answer/solution to the very legalism which paralyses him.

Anyone read Monsignor Benson’s “Dawn of All?”

I suspect, much the same as the lead character in that book, Fr Bellamd is the victim of a nervous strain, which as Monsignor Benson explains, occurs when the emotional faculties gain an undue influence over the reasonable faculties, producing internal conflict.

https://akacatholic.com/the-question-no-one-is-asking/#comments

From Fr. Belland's comments on AKA Catholic blog:

Has any even considered, for the sake of argument, that even if Pope St. Pius X, had he been elected in 2005 instead of Benedict he COULD NOT HAVE “cleaned house”? Why? Precisely because the apostasy in the Church was in full blossom, even involving Cardinals and Bishops. Wouldn’t it be stupid to think that those in charge would obey him? And secondly, how is he going to find every Deacon, Priest, Bishop and Cardinal and whoever else, in order to publicize their excommunication in the event that such a move would be made?
For me, it seems reasonable that the enemies of the Church had to be identified, for it is easier to do battle with the enemy when one knows where they are. So WHAT BENEDICT DID WAS TO RETAIN THE PETRINE OFFICE, RENOUNCED THE “EXERCISE” OF THE POWER GOVERNING AND THE POWER OF TEACHING WHILE CONTINUING THE “EXERCISE” OF THE POWER OF SANCTIFYING, and thus retired to Mater Ecclesiae in order to do penance and pray! In this was the enemy would come out of the woodwork and expose themselves. And in this way it is up to the Faithful to say: “Hey, that those apostates are doing is not Catholic and we don’t want anything to do with them; and then the could associate with Benedict who is the true Pope and the Church.

The Visibility of would be sensible again, being that people would have to make a choice: either they are FOR Christ and the True Church or they are with Satan and his apostates. And since the primary element in the Visibility of the Church is the Pope, we MUST recognize that there is an “emperor” without clothes who presents himself as Pope and turn our attention to the True Pope. Furthermore, because social unity, i.e., the unity of the Faithful must first and foremost begin with unity of the True Faith: the integral Unity of Doctrine and Practice, Its Unity with Sacred Scripture, and it’s Unity with the past. And the Church Militant would have the task of watching for and ridding the Church of any apostates who have not sincerely converted.

It is my contention that Benedict made a very courageous and ingenious decision for the Common Good of the Church, but no one seems to realize or want to realize what he did, that God used him as a secondary cause in order to keep Official Power from the hands of Satan, i.e., from those under the control of Satan, and thereby preserved the INDEFECTIBILITY OF THE CHURCH, and kept the promise of Christ to Peter at Caesareae Philippi that “the gates of hell will not prevail over It” from mockery. Please read the following excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

• “The GIFT OF INDEFECTIBILITY is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it…. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e., the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it into being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it would set up a false and corrupt moral standard. He established it to proclaim His revelation to the world, and charged it to warn all men that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly.” …………….

“It was said above that one part of the Church’s gift of indefectibility lies in her preservation from any substantial corruption in the sphere of morals. This supposes, not merely that she will always proclaim the perfect standard of morality bequeathed to her by her Founder, but also that in every age the lives of many of her children will be based on that sublime mode. Only a supernatural principle of spiritual life could bring this about” (The Catholic Encyclopedia 1913, Vol. 3 under ‘Church’ Pg. 756).

I have shown that this is in fact what Benedict did in what I call my “Thesis”, and if anyone is interested, he is welcome to email me with a request at frdgelland@netscape.net. God bless and Our Lady protect you all.

2Vt, he is back with the Novus Ordo, I think. 

When I looked up "Fr. David Belland", I get an SSPX newsletter from 2001, where he was moved to IMH chapel in suburban Minneapolis.

If I search "Rev. David Belland", I get two very recent things: a facebook post from the Diocese of St. Cloud's Office of Vocations and a parish bulletin from May, where he is listed as one of the priests parishioners should pray for.

Back in the day there was some doubt/dispute about whether he had actually been conditionally ordained.

This was the impression I got from his posts on the blog above..one of which clearly suggests he defends Vatican II.  Despite the info I found online that states he asserts that he was conditionally ordained by Bishop Williamson in the Old Rite, I now wonder whether that actually ever happened and he is, in fact, a Novus Ordo priest ordained in the New Rite.

I'm not sure how you get "defends Vatican II" from the above.

He was always a diocesan priest of the diocese of St. Cloud, MN. But he was exclusively latin Mass from at least when the St. Robert Bellarmine chapel started (circa 1993), and also taught in the SSPX seminary. I would expect he said Mass at the seminary, too. Do you really think either would happen if his ordination was doubtful from the SSPX perspective? That was when Bp. Williamson was there.

The diocese of St. Cloud considers still him a priest of the diocese (he is listed in the current directory of religious for the US), but the diocese has given him no assignment or ministry.

These posts are already among the top search results for him. Let's be careful not to make unjust speculations.