If this website happens, we need to work together with other sites that have already started a list (i.e. sites posted on this thread).  And also reach out to other sites (i.e. novus ordo watch, traditio.com, TIA, etc).  We need as many Trads who have a "pulse" on chapel activity as possible. 

Traditio.com seems to do a good job of receiving & updating info on a monthly basis. 

Great suggestions.  We COULD probably also keep track of priests KNOWN to have been ordained or at least conditionally ordained.

I know there are lists out there with some names, but they are not exhaustive, and the best tips I've found are actually here on CathInfo.

Using a thread in Anonymous would certainly be best.

Really, the scenario that comes to mind is what occurred to me on Sunday morning, where I walk into Mass, go to Confession (got there very early), and it doesn't SOUND like the priest who's usually there, and his behavior in Confession already sends off some alarm bells.  Then he emerges and it's not someone I recognize.  His name is not listed in bulletin, nor does he announce it from the pulpit -- and the style / quality of his sermons also adds to the suspicion (you can tell an NO sermon when you hear one, and this was at least borderline, though neo-SSPX are getting harder and harder to tell apart).

Well, I could have stepped out in the vestibule and perused such a website as I peruse it to see if his picture looks familiar to those on a list from the rogue's gallery of fake priests.

This will also serve to put pressure on SSPX.

Oh, and I would also want to track based on tips such as "Fr." [such-and-such] was at St. [so-and-so] last Sunday, and he did appear to consecrate a ciborium, so next week might be cookie roulette.  I advise not coming here next Sunday if you wish to receive Holy Communion".

I'm SO fed up with the arrogant gaslighting from SSPX that I'm ready to take the gloves off.  Yeah, sure ... I'll be refused the Sacraments even from valid priests once they put my face to it, but the younger ones don't know me as well.

But in case one slipped through, it would be good to have pictures of the known-valid priests (SSPX-ordained or confirmed to have been conditionally ordained) ... yet it would be by far the much longer list (as of this time anyway), so it may not be as usable.

And, yes, there used to be a publication ... I think it was under the umbrella of "Cor Unum" which had a list of all SSPX priests, year of ordination, and who ordained them.  Of course they started getting rid of that, since they don't want to draw attention to the problem.  Also, I think the last time I saw a list of "Priest Assignments" published was in 2020, and I strongly suspect that they occsaionally shuffle some priests around on purpose just to "stick it to" the faithful who have problems with their acceptance of NO Orders.

Well, I for one am pretty tired of it.

We all know darn well WHY they're doing it, and it's not because they've sincerely concluded by just a rational study of the raw evidence, without any bias, that there's absolutely no rational, prudent, or positive doubt possible that would justify even a CONDITIONAL Ordination.

So, some posters on X are undoubtedly parroting back the SSPX talking points to defend them, claiming that Ordaining valid priests would be a sacrilege.  Yeah, no duh ... that's why there's such a thing as CONDITIONAL Ordination, where the formula ensures that it cannot happen, since if he's already ordained, no ordination takes place per the express manifest intention of the one ordaining (via the formula).  Now, one COULD indirectly bring dishonor to the Sacrament even by using the conditional, if someone started just conditionally administering those Sacraments to anyone with a pulse "just in case", i.e. based on a negative doubt ... since perhaps the minister is scrupulous and/or neurotic.

But that is most certainly not the case here.  We have a bunch of Modernists who set out by their own admission to radically transform the Church, and we see how they radically changed at least the Rite of Episcopal consecration.  That first video put out by SSPX had the priest at least admitting this.  So I guess they had to march the Modernist Heretic Fr. Paul Robinson out there to do damage control ... though I haven't seen his take on it yet.  In any case, a serious change to the Rite, into some form that has no direct precedent, by those with suspect motives, quite possibly infiltrators ... yeah, that absolutely qualifies to introduce a sufficient level of prudent positive doubt that would require conditional administration of these Sacraments.

Here's another thing.  Even if I myself were convinced that the NO Orders were valid, I would nevertheless recognize that many serious, intelligent, and sincere men have problems with it, and that suffices to require a conditional ... with the alternative being that I now willl impose my judgment (against those of these other men) on the consciences of all those who attend SSPX chapels.  Now let's say I'm wrong ... where there was some fallacy or missed distinction in my reasoning.  Well, I just subjected countless souls to invalid Sacraments ... and I am liable to hellfire for it, ESPECIALLY if my "judgment" was not really sincere or intellectualy dishonest, driven by the political motives of reconciling with the Modernist Religion.

These people are pretending the status quaestionis is comparable to a negative doubt along the lines of, "I didn't hear Father say the words of consecration, what if he got them wrong?"  Ridiculous and dishonest gaslighting.

So ... upside of conditional ordination ---> making it morally certain that the faithful at your chapels are receiving valid Sacraments.
So ... possible downside? ---> Bergs and Pervost might be upset with you and call off talks.

I see no other downside.  No, there's no harm being done to the Sacraments, and no "sacrilege" if you're wrong.

It's 1000% about politics and they need to be absolutely ashamed of themselves ... and their judgment will be harsh before God for subjecting souls to invalid Sacraments, or even if they just so happen to be right, for POSSIBLY subjecting souls to invalid Sacraments.

I have started this and the pinned thread can be found here: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/ordination-validation/

If you would like to take this over- please let me know and I can gather the information I have collected so far and send via email. My contact information is in the thread and, because I travel so much, you might be the better man to take on the task.

I do not recommend posting pictures or locations for safety reasons ( mentioned in the thread).

Thank you.  I know there are different threads on this subject.  Perhaps I'll compile yours and others I find into a single ANONYMOUS forum post so that others who may be afraid of excommunication from neo-SSPX might have a place to post.

What safety reasons?

It's precisely my intent to post pictures of the priests to expose the stealth introduction of pseudo-priests into chapels.

As for locations, we need to post those too, since SSPX refuses to.

What is this, where we have an underground church where the Communist authorities will arrest them if they find out they're functioning?

That's nonsense.  In most ordinary situations, which priest is at which chapel or which prior, can be ascertained from widely available sources.  What we're dealing with are situations where one "fills in" for another, and just happens to be un-announced.  There's no safety consideration whatsoever.

Talk is cheap. You should've done it before publicly talking about plans to do it. Now, all you did was telegraph to the enemy so they can take precautions to evade your net.

Fool.

You're an idiot ... and your buffoonery is one of the reasons I stopped posting here, making an exception for this endeavour alone.

You've continued to make a foolish cuck out of Matthew by constantly turning up here and making his "bans" utterly worthless.  I also suspect that you're a troll, throwing incendiary over-the-top racist garbage onto the board in order to possibly set people up here.

In any case, they can't "take precautions" ... and without cooperation for others, it's not something I could ever possibly do on my own.  I can't travel the country myself interviewing individual priests to determine the status of their conditoinal or non-conditional ordination.

CONS:
-  A big negative to a listing of all LEGIT sspx priests is that (in the case of big brother), we would be helping them to track down such if things get nuts.
-  Maybe they already know this?  Probably.  Just throwing out a 'yellow light' for this idea.

See, I think "they" already know who they all are anyway.  They know who all of us here on CI are.  They have the resources ... and whether we use a fake name, post in "Members", or even use a VPN, they know who we are.  AND they likewise know who all the SSPX priests are and where they are, probably at all times, and at every moment.  I doubt this would contribute even .1% more to the intelligence they already have.  They probably know that I am typing this right at this moment.

I recall that one AI company is trying to get one of the old reactors at Three Mile Island fired back up just to power "AI", but we all know that this AI isn't for our benefit, but it's for controlling and tracking us.

See, I think "they" already know who they all are anyway.  They know who all of us here on CI are.  They have the resources ... and whether we use a fake name, post in "Members", or even use a VPN, they know who we are.  AND they likewise know who all the SSPX priests are and where they are, probably at all times, and at every moment.  I doubt this would contribute even .1% more to the intelligence they already have.  They probably know that I am typing this right at this moment.

I recall that one AI company is trying to get one of the old reactors at Three Mile Island fired back up just to power "AI", but we all know that this AI isn't for our benefit, but it's for controlling and tracking us.

I agree, just wanted to point out a yellow flag, just in case.

Right, and neo-SSPX would be caught between a rock and a hard place, where if they suddenly start claiming that, "yeah, we conditionally ordained all of them" ... well, then they might as well actually do it then if they say they're doing it (unless we have among them some Satanists who are deliberately just trying to get invalid Sacraments out there).  Since their primary motivation appears to be not getting on the bad side of the Modernists, this would in fact undo that anyway ... UNLESS they contact the Modernists via back channels and tell them, "hey, we're taking heat, so we're going to tell everyone we conditionally ordain even if we don't".  There's really no way to combat that degree of malice, if there are men in their ranks who are THAT evil.  Hopefully there are enough honest men among their priests who would not themselves lie when asked about it.

Yes.  And if the new-sspx lies about conditional ordinations, then at least we are covered by God.  We did all we could do.