CathInfo.com

Pavarinus’ training is questionable since the majority of his training was under Shuckardt. Then you have a Thuc bishop come and ordain him willynilly. Did that bishop even investigate the training?

Saint John Vianney wasn't trained in a seminary...  But he was one of the best and holiest of confessors...

Why assume the worst?  Have you even met him?  Have you not seen any of the good he has done around the world for tradition?  "It is by their fruits that you shall know them."

Pavarinus’ training is questionable since the majority of his training was under Shuckardt. Then you have a Thuc bishop come and ordain him willynilly. Did that bishop even investigate the training?

Perhaps you can investigate and get back to us.  You might start by spelling his name correctly (you made 3 errors in his last name alone).  He seems very articulate, knowledgeable, able to validly confect Sacraments (mostly fluent in Latin).  I don't agree with him on quite a few issues, but I won't claim that he's not capable and well trained.  I also disagree with some priests who clearly have impeccable credentials.

Speaking of credentials, you like maligning Bishop Guerards des Lauriers, but the man was arguably THE TOP theologian in the Church in the years leading up to Vatican II.  He assisted in Pius XII's declaration defining the Dogma of the Assumption, was personal confessor to Pius XII for some time, held several advanced degrees and taught in the top seminaries in Rome.  Later he was the primary author of the Ottaviani Intervention.  But it's OK for you to brush him aside as some ignoramus when you can't hold a candle to him.

Anecdotally, I've met many pre-V2-trained priests who basically had a thorough knowledge of the basic catechism, questionable knowledge of Latin (could pronounce it OK when reading but likely did not comprehend it), and with whom you can't even strike up a conversation about basic Thomistic philosophy/theology.  IMO, Bishop Pivarunas' knowledge far exceeds that of these priests.