CathInfo.com

Thanks Lad.

Well Deo Gratias they have a priest who hopefully shows up soon, and for the agitators - tell them to just ask him directly if he was conditionally ordained. I have never understood why trads hesitate or don't ask when the priest himself expects it and welcomes it. I've asked many priests about their ordinations and all were happy, even eager to answer.Sometimes the priest will even talk about it from the pulpit. But no one, particularly in the day and age, should be the least bit hesitant about asking.

But Father Casavantes does tell them if they ask that he was conditionally ordained by Bishop Williamson and he even announced that from the pulpit his first Mass.  But they don't accept his word for it, nor mine, since I also knew about it all the way back in 1990, shortly after it took place.  They just insist on seeing some "certificate".  As Elwin mentioned, certificates were generally not issued for condtiionals before Vatican II, but I agree that this is a different situation.  But, even though in the last 1980s, the SSPX cared much less about "offending" Rome, after the post-consecration excommunications, they still didn't "trumpet" it from the rooftops.  If you asked them, they would tell you, so it wasn't secret ... it's just that they didn't proactively announce it.

When the one agitator was pestering Father (almost OCD-like) for, what?, the 5th time ... (I think he's actually borderline senile to be honest) ... one of the Trustees got frustrated and reprimanded him, saying "So, are you saying that Father is a liar?  ... and that Father Carley, who verified it, is a liar? .. and that [Ladislaus] who also confirms that he knew about it in 1990 is also a liar?"  To which he responded, "oh, well, I believe it ... it's just that others keep asking me".  Yeah, right ...

So I'm still trying to reach out here to various sources to ge the verification / confirmation from someone with DIRECT knowledge of the matter.

I have the same frustration with various dogmatic SV types on X (and here for a while) denouncing the conditional consecratoin of +Vigano for not having been publicly announced, and therefore calling it "secret".  So ... not posting a message on the internet or announcing it in a video on Youtube doesn't make it "secret".  Anyone who asked Bishop Williamson or Father Chazal or Bishop Faure or (I'm guessing) Archbishop Vigano (though I know of no one who was in contact with him and did so), but at least +Williamson, +Faure, and Fr. Chazal would also just answer that, yes, he had in fact been condtionally consecrated.  So ... that wouldn't qualify as "secret".  I've even seen an e-mail from +Faure in which he confirmed it in writing.  But these people create this false dichotomy that if it isn't posted on "X" or something, that makes it "secret".  There are many prudential reasons for which one might not consider it advisable to publicize the matter.  +Bellini and +Morgan had actually been "secret" for some time, as was +Stobnicki (for a shorter period of time).  SSPV kept the +Mendez consecration of +Kelly secret for some time.  Agree or disagree with their reasons, but their not publicizing it doesn't make it secret.

In fact, if someone were a fraudster, they could easily "shop" up some kind of "certificate" ... given modern technology.  I actually see that with relics that people are sacrilegeously selling on eBay.  So, the ones that are credible are those who have / list / sell some without docuмents, since they know that those without docuмents can't be sold for even a quarter of what the ones with docuмents are going for.  But then there are others who have docuмents for every one, most of which look suspicious, and THOSE are the ones likely committing fraud.  We had Bishop Moran forging docuмent left and right and even (albeit amateurishly) shopping pictures.  PS:  I do believe +Moran is a valid bishop, but from an Orthodox line, but that he never met +Slipyj.