I have written something on the subject of Bishop Huonder. Mostly I am applying some teaching of Fr. Scott from 2007 to the Bishop Huonder case. It is  attached. You may do as you will with it.

God bless,
Fr. MacDonald




Dear Faithful,

Bishop Vitus Hounder tells us that Pope Francis gave him the mission of working to integrate the
SSPX into the Conciliar Church in 2015. He began discussions with the SSPX and in 2019 moved
into a house of the SSPX which operates a school. The faithful's concerns at the time were allayed
as we were told that he was retiring and would not be teaching or doing priestly or episcopal
functions. The SSPX has published nothing in the English speaking world about his activities, but
he was active and not just retired.

Now it has become public even in the English speaking world that Bishop Hounder has performed
the Holy Thursday Chrismal Mass at the SSPX's German seminary. We recall from the catechism:
"Holy Chrism is a mixture of Olive Oil and Balm blessed by the bishop on Holy Thursday."
Only Holy Thursday 2023 it was Bishop Hounder who blessed the Holy Chrism and also the two
other Holy Oils: the Oil of the Catechumens, and the Oil of the Infirm.

These oils are used by priests and bishops for the sacraments. There is no sacrament of
Confirmation without Holy Chrism. There is no sacrament of Extreme Unction without the Oil of
the Infirm. The anointings and consecration made at Baptism are important, and the many
consecrations that bishops do depend upon having Holy Chrism or the Oil of the Catechumens.
If Bishop Hounder is a bishop there is not a problem. However, if he is not a bishop there is a
serious problem. The trouble is we do not know if he is a bishop or not. There is a positive doubt as
to whether he is a bishop. Therefore we don’t know if these are holy oils or just olive oil. We cannot
use doubtful matter for the sacraments. Fr. Scott explains this in his September 2007 Angelus
article, here: https://sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained

Here is an excerpt from Fr. Scott’s article. I have added the bold.

Archbishop Lefebvre clearly recognized his obligation of providing priests concerning whose
ordination there was no doubt. It was one of the reasons for the episcopal consecrations of 1988,
as he declared in the sermon for the occasion:
You well know, my dear brethren, that there can be no priests without bishops. When
God calls me—this will certainly not be long—from whom would these seminarians
receive the sacrament of Orders? From conciliar bishops, who, due to their doubtful
intentions, confer doubtful sacraments? This is not possible."

He continued, explaining that he could not leave the faithful orphans, nor abandon the
seminarians who entrusted themselves to him, for “they came to our seminaries, despite all the
difficulties that they have encountered, in order to receive a true ordination to the priesthood...” (Fr.
Francois Laisney, Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, p.120). He considered it his duty to
guarantee the certitude of the sacrament of holy orders by the consecration of bishops in the
traditional rite, who would then ordain only in the traditional rite.

We must observe the same balance as Archbishop Lefebvre. On the one hand, it is our duty to
avoid the excess of sedevacantism, which unreasonably denies the very validity and existence of
the post-conciliar Church and its priesthood. On the other hand, however, we must likewise reject
the laxist and liberal approach that does not take seriously the real doubts that can arise
concerning the validity of priestly ordinations in the post-conciliar Church, failing to consider the
enormous importance and necessity of a certainly valid priesthood for the good of the Church, for
the eternal salvation of souls, and for the tranquillity of the consciences of the faithful. Given the
gravity of these issues, it is not even a slight doubt that is acceptable. Hence the duty of examining
in each particular case the vernacular form of priestly ordination, the intention of the ordaining
bishop, the rite of consecration of the ordaining bishop, and the intention of the consecrators.
Just as the superiors take seriously their duty of guaranteeing the moral certitude of the holy
orders of their priests, whether by means of conditional ordination or careful investigation
(when possible), so also must priests who join the Society accept conditional ordination in case
of even slight positive doubt, and so also must the faithful recognize that each case is different
and accept the decision of those who alone are in a position to perform the necessary
investigations.

For regardless of the technical question of the validity of a priest’s holy orders, we all recognize the
Catholic sense that tells us that there can be no mixing of the illegitimate new rites with the
traditional Catholic rites, a principle so simply elucidated by Archbishop Lefebvre on June 29, 1976:
We are not of this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We are of the religion
of all time, of the Catholic religion. We are not of that universal religion, as they call it
today. It is no longer the Catholic religion. We are not of that liberal, modernist religion
that has its worship, its priests, its faith, its catechisms, its Bible."

End of Fr. Scott excerpt.

There is no record of anyone examining the priestly ordination of Conciliar bishop Hounder. Nor is
there a record of his consecration as a bishop being examined.

The superiors of the SSPX have rejected their duty of guaranteeing the moral certainty of the holy
orders of their priests. They have for quite a few years refused to conditionally ordain priests who
had serious doubts about their ordination. Fr. Scott teaches us correctly that investigations are
necessary. Objectively it is a grave sin on the part of the superiors of the SSPX to allow doubtful
oils that are perhaps consecrated to be used for the sacraments. Also, the priests are not allowed to
administer doubtful sacraments. They have a grave duty to not use the Oil of the Infirm consecrated
by perhaps a bishop Vitus Hounder for the sacrament of Extreme Unction.

Parents now must question the priest who baptises their children about which bishop consecrated
the oils that he is using. If it was Bishop Hounder they should get the ceremonies supplied by a
priest using certainly valid oil, e.g., oil consecrated by Bishop Fellay. The families who call a priest
to the bed of the dying must question the priest and learn if Bishop Hounder consecrated the oil. If
he did they must refuse the sacrament. And demand that he get other oil to anoint their dying
relative.

Here is a second excerpt from Fr. Scott’s article:

2) When it concerns the validity of the sacraments, we are obliged to follow a “tutiorist”
position, or safest possible course of action.

We cannot choose a less certain option, called by the moral theologians a simply probable manner
of acting, that could place in doubt the validity of the sacraments, as we are sometimes obliged to
do in other moral questions. If we were able to follow a less certain way of acting, we would run
the risk of grave sacrilege and uncertainty concerning the sacraments, which would place the
eternal salvation of souls in great jeopardy. Even the lax “probabilist” theologians admitted this
principle with respect to baptism and holy orders, since the contrary opinion was condemned by
Pope Innocent XI in 1679. Innocent XI condemned the position that it is permissible in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned.... Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders." (Proposition 1 condemned and prohibited by Innocent XI, Dz. 1151)

Consequently, it is forbidden to accept a likely or probably valid ordination for the subsequent
conferring of sacraments. One must have the greatest possible moral certitude, as in other things
necessary for eternal salvation. The faithful themselves understand this principle, and it really is a
part of the “sensus Ecclesiae,” the spirit of the Church. They do not want to share modernist,
liberal rites, and have an aversion to receiving the sacraments from priests ordained in such rites,
for they cannot tolerate a doubt in such matters. It is for this reason that they turn to the superiors
to guarantee validity.

End of second Fr. Scott excerpt.

SSPX superiors can no longer be relied upon to give the required guarantees of validity for the
sacraments. They have become so amalgamated with the Conciliar Church that they accept
unquestioningly everything that it does.

The faithful must not trust the SSPX superiors and those priests who don’t question their actions, or
in this case their lack of action. The SSPX superiors have rejected their strict duty of guaranteeing
the moral certainty of the sacraments given by their bishops and priests.

St. Nereus, pray for us.
St. Domitilla, pray for us,
St. Pancras, pray for us.

Fr. MacDonald, Winnipeg 2024 May 12

Fr. MacDonald, Winnipeg 2024 May 12

Perhaps a year too late?