There have been questions about the ordinations of Fr. Pieroni and Fr. Thomas, both currently based in Ridgefield.  They cover the Boston/Woburn (Gilforn NH), and Hartford, CT chapel locations respectively.  Any info would be appreciated as there is some consternation about them, for the usual reasons.  God bless you all and thanks. 

This should only bother you if you think the New Rite of ordination is doubtful/invalid in principle. That has never been the position of the Society. The New Rite is in principle valid but it can become doubtful if there is any evidence of a lack of intention on the part of the Bishop. That’s what ABL said in 88

And therefore, it should bother you even if you think the New Rite of Ordination to be valid in principle, as it did Archbishop Lefebvre:
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/questionable-priestly-ordinations-in-the-conciliar-church/
Questionable priestly ordinations in the conciliar Church
— A letter of Archbishop Lefebvre:

[ Editor’s note:  In this transcription, we have left unchanged the spelling and style found in the handwritten letter of the Archbishop. ]

Ecône, 28 oct. 1988
Very dear Mr. Wilson,
thank you very much for your kind letter. I agree with your desire to reordain conditionnaly these priests, and I have done this reordination many times.
All sacraments from the modernists bishops or priests are doubtfull now.  The changes are increasing and their intentions are no more catholics.
We are in the time of great apostasy.
We need more and more bishops and priests very catholics.  It is necessary everywhere in the world.
Thank you for the newspaper article from the Father Alvaro Antonio Perez Jesuit!
We must pray and work hardly to extend the kingdom of Jesus-Christ.
I pray for you and your lovely family.
Devotly in Jesus and Mary.
Marcel Lefebvre
 

Commentary
Archbishop Lefebvre relies on two principal arguments to assert that the new sacraments, especially ordinations, are henceforth questionable:
* the evolution of the rites;
* and the defect in intention.
The new rites of the sacraments promulgated by the conciliar Church, promulgated in the typical editions in Latin, are probably valid ¹.  But that does not prevent numerous sacraments from being invalid in practice, for the two reasons quoted above.
Archbishop Lefebvre said that in his opinion a great number of new masses were invalid – while admitting the validity of the new rite in itself.
Bp Tissier de Mallerais, in his sermon from June 29, 2016 at Econe, spoke as follows concerning the rite of ordination for priests:
“Clearly, we cannot accept this faked new rite of ordination that leaves doubts concerning the validity of numerous ordinations done according to the new rite.  Thus this new rite of ordination is not Catholic.  And so we will of course faithfully continue to transmit the real and valid priesthood by the traditional priestly rite of ordination.”
In an article that appeared in Le Sel de la terre 54 on the subject of the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration, after showing that the rite in itself is probably valid, we added:
“Due to the generalized disorder, both at the liturgical and dogmatic levels, we can have serious reasons to doubt the validity of certain episcopal ordinations.”
And we quoted the remarks of Archbishop Lefebvre on the subject of the episcopal consecration of Bp Daneels, auxiliary bishop of Brussels:
“Little booklets were published on the occasion of this consecration. For the public prayers, here is what was said and repeated by the crowd:
Be an apostle like Peter and Paul; be an apostle like the patron of this parish; be an apostle like Gandhi; be an apostle like Luther; be an apostle like (Martin) Luther King; be an apostle like Helder Camara; be an apostle like Romero.
Apostle like Luther, but what intention did the bishops have when they consecrated this bishop, Bp. Daneels²?”
“It is frightening…Was this bishop really consecrated?  We can doubt it anyway.  And if that is the intention of the consecrators, it is incomprehensible!  The situation is even more serious than we thought³.”
We could quote numerous examples of sacraments given in the conciliar Church that were certainly invalid:  confirmations given without using holy oils; baptisms where one person pours the water, while another pronounces the words, etc⁴.
This is why the position of Archbishop Lefebvre in the letter that we have quoted here, appears wise:  because of the particular importance of the sacrament of ordination, it is necessary to conditionally re-ordain the priests who come from the conciliar Church to the Traditional one.
(Taken from “Le Sel de la terre” 98)

• We can make an exception for the new rite of Confirmation that permits the use of oils other than olive oil, which introduces a doubt concerning the validity, by reason of a defect of matter.  We also point out that Fr Alvaro Calderon (SSPX), in the Spanish language review Si Si No No (#267, November 2014), speaks of a “slight doubt,” a “shadow” concerning the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration in itself (see Le Sel de la terre 92, p. 172).
• Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference in Nantes (France), February 5, 1983.
• Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference in Ecône (Switzerland), October 28, 1988.
• We take this occasion to ask our readers who have knowledge of sacraments that are certainly invalid (notably baptism) to kindly send us their testimony.

Precisely Banezi, that is why, even if you think the Rite is valid in itself, you still need to be bothered about it! Just tidying up the logic, we obviously hold the same belief about this. It is of grave concern that the Society is now overlooking this "minor" matter (valid sacraments) and increasingly accepting these New Priests as certainly valid in practice. 

So what do I have to click on to get the quote at the top of my entry like you did when you quoted me just now?

Banezian, if you can't answer the question, then take the Holy Orders discussion elsewhere.  Thanks.

Thanks Merry, appreciate that little tutorial!

I'm sorry I can't help with the two priests in question.

Just let me say to Banezi that we need to be 'wise as serpents but simple as doves'. We need to realise that the enemy is everywhere and no doubt the SSPX has been their main focus ever since its institution. It is certainly infiltrated, and of course they are wolves in the clothing of sheep. Read again what the Archbishop says on this matter. It is almost impossible now after 50 years of the crisis to be certain of any of these new priests.

I can tell you, Banezi, that I had the Assistant to a District Superior of the SSPX write to me "this appears to be another difference between the Resistance and the SSPX in that we officially (sic) recognize the Novus Ordo priests as valid". Just like that. No qualification whatsoever. He then went on to recommend that I use them for the sacraments rather than the SSPX (as the Resistance is hateful to him). This was a general recommendation regarding NO priests, not regarding a particular priest that he knew. Beware!

Now, can anyone help Merry with regard the ordination status of these two priests?

Are you talking about Fr. David Thomas?

He was ordained in Winona in the class of 2004 by Bishop Williamson:
http://stas.org/sites/sspx/files/v094_sum2004.pdf

Don't know his first name - both these priests are based in Ridgefield.  (Thank you for your charity - Quo Vadis Domine also.)  

You misunderstand what he says in the letter. Yes, N.O sacraments are often doubtful but note why he says they are doubtful.
“ The changes are increasing and their intentions are no more catholics.”

He misunderstands nothing.  It is you who are distorting and misrepresenting the historical position of the SSPX.

So far there is no conclusion on Fr. Pieroni (Fr. Christopher Pieroni).  It turns out he has been asked about here on CathInfo a number of times!  The background is that he jumped from the Novus Ordo to tradition - but nowhere does it state he was conditionally re-ordained.  He has been with the SSPX for a few years.  Even Internet searches have nothing of fact to offer.  Just one person states they "thought" he had been re-ordained by Bishop Williamson.  This doubt may cause some trouble at the chapel he services. 

Any news on this? Has he been re ordained? Just found out that he celebrates mass in Davie as well as West Palm in FL and am now questioning if I will go back to the Davie mass center due to this uncertainty.