Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: 2Vermont on September 19, 2023, 07:07:22 AM
-
RORATE CÆLI: Heard in the SSPX Priories: A Consecration of New Bishops for the SSPX is coming, sooner rather than later (rorate-caeli.blogspot.com) (https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2023/09/heard-in-sspx-priories-consecration-of.html)
Heard in the SSPX Priories: A Consecration of New Bishops for the SSPX is coming, sooner rather than later
We can't add much more right now, but talk is growing.
The SSPX leadership will obviously request Rome's approval, as Abp. Lefebvre himself requested in 1987/1988 (with unclear, then clear, results...), but what exactly will unfold is unclear at the moment.
We'll have more to add soon.
-
I wrote this to a Resistance priest on June 6:
“I am convinced the rumor of June episcopal consecrations was a “probing” exercise (otherwise known as a “trial balloon”), which is a military tactic, whereby the enemy’s defenses and reactions are tested, to gauge the level of danger for the actual attack to come later.
In this case, the Huonder Hoky oils consecration was the first probe. Menzingen and Rome observe the reaction. Then, around the same time, a “leak” regarding episcopal consecrations is permitted. Once again, Rome and Menzingen observe. They analyze the arguments of the Resistance, as well as those from within the SSPX.
Rome and Menzingen have thereby accomplished two things important tactical victories:
- They are ALREADY preparing the faithful for eventual consecrations by keeping the conversation in the public domain and raising expectations for their eventuality (just as +Fellay did by his constant conferences about “relations with Rome”);
- They now have time to analyze our objections, and prepare counterattacks against them.
One has to admire the tactical acuмen with which the captors of Tradition operate.
Semper Idem,
Sean Johnson”
Look for a new wrinkle in this latest round of rumors, as fruits of the aforementioned reconnaissance operation.
-
Shortly before this, I received photographic evidence from a Resistance priest of a text message thread/conversation he had with an SSPX priest, who wrote that Fr. Pagliarani had instructed priests to prepare/condition the faithful for the eventuality of episcopal consecrations.
-
(https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-there-s-an-old-saying-in-tennessee-i-know-it-s-in-texas-probably-in-tennessee-that-says-george-w-bush-34-52-88.jpg)
-
All I know for sure:
You will NOT have, at any time in the near future, a GLORIOUS consecration of bishops like in 1988.
By "glorious" I mean:
Uncompromising, steadfast fortitude standing up for the Catholic Faith and Tradition, in heroic opposition to Modernist Rome, with a saintly bishop at the center, acting like St. Athanasius of old. No compromise, instilling hope in all who attended and watched the ceremony.
No, any neo-SSPX consecration of bishops would be tainted, compromised -- the only question is, in WHAT way(s).
-
How may I taint thee, let me count the ways.......
Thus will end the neosspx, not with a bang of a whimper, but with the arrogant bleat of compromised clerics as they embrace the wolf of modern Rome with joyous ease before conciliar fangs tear into their sheepish faces.
(http://orig14.deviantart.net/4a8b/f/2011/198/d/8/an_american_werewolf_in_london_by_sulla72-d3yzsjw.jpg)
-
Shortly before this, I received photographic evidence from a Resistance priest of a text message thread/conversation he had with an SSPX priest, who wrote that Fr. Pagliarani had instructed priests to prepare/condition the faithful for the eventuality of episcopal consecrations.
Dear Sean,
Fr. Pagliarani will be in Sanford, Florida the week of Oct. 8 to rest, according to Fr. Vernoy.
-
Shortly before this, I received photographic evidence from a Resistance priest of a text message thread/conversation he had with an SSPX priest, who wrote that Fr. Pagliarani had instructed priests to prepare/condition the faithful for the eventuality of episcopal consecrations.
Our priest gave a homily on Sunday doing this very thing. He gave some history on the 1988 consecration, the backlash, and that there has to be new Bishops in the society.
-
All I know for sure:
You will NOT have, at any time in the near future, a GLORIOUS consecration of bishops like in 1988.
By "glorious" I mean:
Uncompromising, steadfast fortitude standing up for the Catholic Faith and Tradition, in heroic opposition to Modernist Rome, with a saintly bishop at the center, acting like St. Athanasius of old. No compromise, instilling hope in all who attended and watched the ceremony.
No, any neo-SSPX consecration of bishops would be tainted, compromised -- the only question is, in WHAT way(s).
.
If--and that's a big if, I think-- SSPX leadership is indeed giving instructions to prepare the faithful for consecrations, that makes me think SSPX leadership is prepared to perform the consecrations with or without the Vatican's permission.
.
15 years ago no such preparation would be necessary. The frogs are boiled by now though. Consecrating without Bergoglio's permission would, I think, be a bigger shock to the rank and file than consecrating with his permission. Hence the need for "preparation".
.
As far as the consecrations being compromised, retrospect tells us that 75% of the men +ABL consecrated ended up reshaping the society to be a pleasing debutante for the conciliar church. You can technically get more compromised than that, I guess. But not a whole lot.
-
As far as the consecrations being compromised, retrospect tells us that 75% of the men +ABL consecrated ended up reshaping the society to be a pleasing debutante for the conciliar church. You can technically get more compromised than that, I guess. But not a whole lot.
Uh, no. You can get a WHOLE LOT more compromised than +ABL.
And his failure rate was 25%, not 75%. Only +Fellay turned out to be an accordista. That's 1 out of 4. And the "failure" (+Fellay) was tacked on at the end, at the last minute, at the urging of Swiss benefactors, you will note. ;)
Have you seen the writings of +Tissier de Mallerais? His problem was more "old and retired" and "not hero material" -- but certainly not as you say "reshaping the society to be a pleasing debutante for the conciliar church".
Indeed, what has +De Mallerais been up to since 2012? Sidelined, retired, out of public view. Has he been working or preparing, moving the SSPX *in any way* towards the Conciliar Church? I think not.
-
Uh, no. You can get a WHOLE LOT more compromised than +ABL.
And his failure rate was 25%, not 75%. Only +Fellay turned out to be an accordista. That's 1 out of 4. And the "failure" (+Fellay) was tacked on at the end, at the last minute, at the urging of Swiss benefactors, you will note. ;)
Have you seen the writings of +Tissier de Mallerais? His problem was more "old and retired" and "not hero material" -- but certainly not as you say "reshaping the society to be a pleasing debutante for the conciliar church".
Indeed, what has +De Mallerais been up to since 2012? Sidelined, retired, out of public view. Has he been working or preparing, moving the SSPX *in any way* towards the Conciliar Church? I think not.
I beg to differ: It is crystal clear that 3 of the 4 bishops are accordista.
And as regards +de Mallerais, I quoted his as saying in 2016: "But now there is obviously on the part of Pope Francis , a provision to recognize us without these conditions. We say go!" (As We Are?, p. 26).
There couldn't be a clearer example of +de Mallerais desiring an accord with modernist Rome.
-
Dear Sean,
Fr. Pagliarani will be in Sanford, Florida the week of Oct. 8 to rest, according to Fr. Vernoy.
As you know, Texana, the Sanford Priory, and the Florida missions are a mess. Let's hope Pagliarani does something about it, but I doubt it. More likely, he's getting ready to introduce the new Novus ordo/SSPX bishops.
-
As you know, Texana, the Sanford Priory, and the Florida missions are a mess. Let's hope Pagliarani does something about it, but I doubt it. More likely, he's getting ready to introduce the new Novus ordo/SSPX bishops.
Like this one... "bishop" Thomas Gullickson (https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bgull.html). Good friends with "bishop" Huonder and the neo-SSPX. Was Apostolic Nuncio to Switzerland just a few years ago. Now, conveniently, "retired" and living in South Dakota.
https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bgull.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gullickson
https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/switzerland-new-nuncio-judged-too-traditionalist-23377
-
Dear Sean,
Fr. Pagliarani will be in Sanford, Florida the week of Oct. 8 to rest, according to Fr. Vernoy.
Interesting he picks the most liberal priest in the US Sistrict to rest with.
The CCCC thread has scandalous pics of Pagliarani, Vernoy, and others riding roller coasters. What a sight that must have been for onlookers (one step away from Novus Ordo priests boogying down at Mass).
Will they be hitting Disney World this visit?
Rome would surely approve! Perhaps that’s the point?
-
I beg to differ: It is crystal clear that 3 of the 4 bishops are accordista.
And as regards +de Mallerais, I quoted his as saying in 2016: "But now there is obviously on the part of Pope Francis , a provision to recognize us without these conditions. We say go!" (As We Are?, p. 26).
There couldn't be a clearer example of +de Mallerais desiring an accord with modernist Rome.
Yes, right on.
Ironically, Bishop Tissier has perhaps done more damage than anyone in terms of steering the sinking ship into the harbour of Newrome.
I recall a conference given by Michael Davies in the 1980s at Powers Lake with Fr Nelson, in which he explained that the revolution in the Church owed its almost complete success to the most conservative priests - the ones that the faithful loved and trusted, who reassured the faithful and encouraged them to 'stay in the Church' and submit to authority, obey the Holy Father etc. The faithful would never have followed the out and out modernist revolutionaries, he said, but because these good parish priests that they trusted reassured them they stayed put and resistance was nullified. How many of the 'conservative wing' of the SSPX priests and faithful owe their fidelity to the neo-SSPX to Bishop Tissier, who would have otherwise been resisting? Bishop Tissier long ago changed his tune from anti-accord to pro-accord and anti-resistance.
-
I heard on good authority just a couple of days ago that both Bishop Tissier, on a recent episcopal visit, and a certain district superior both confided to certain souls that the Society would consecrate a bishop within the next 5 years, that it would go through the process of seeking Roman approval but would consecrate with or without it.
-
Yes, right on.
Ironically, Bishop Tissier has perhaps done more damage than anyone in terms of steering the sinking ship into the harbour of Newrome.
I recall a conference given by Michael Davies in the 1980s at Powers Lake with Fr Nelson, in which he explained that the revolution in the Church owed its almost complete success to the most conservative priests - the ones that the faithful loved and trusted, who reassured the faithful and encouraged them to 'stay in the Church' and submit to authority, obey the Holy Father etc. The faithful would never have followed the out and out modernist revolutionaries, he said, but because these good parish priests that they trusted reassured them they stayed put and resistance was nullified. How many of the 'conservative wing' of the SSPX priests and faithful owe their fidelity to the neo-SSPX to Bishop Tissier, who would have otherwise been resisting? Bishop Tissier long ago changed his tune from anti-accord to pro-accord and anti-resistance.
Agree completely.
Aside from +Fellay, or perhaps even moreso, +de Mallerais and Fr. de Cacqueray (former French District Superior) bear the heaviest blame, since without their acquiescence, the ralliement never could have progressed.
-
I heard on good authority just a couple of days ago that both Bishop Tissier, on a recent episcopal visit, and a certain district superior both confided to certain souls that the Society would consecrate a bishop within the next 5 years, that it would go through the process of seeking Roman approval but would consecrate with or without it.
I don’t doubt they said it, but it is inconceivable that after condemning the consecration of +Faure for having proceeded without papal approval, they themselves would do so.
I could, however, imagine them pretending to consecrate without explicit approval (with a wink from Rome), to pretend to have escaped Roman subservience, but rest assured, whomever is consecrated will have at least tacit permission from Rome.
-
Like this one... "bishop" Thomas Gullickson (https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bgull.html). Good friends with "bishop" Huonder and the neo-SSPX. Was Apostolic Nuncio to Switzerland just a few years ago. Now, conveniently, "retired" and living in South Dakota.
https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bgull.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gullickson
https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/switzerland-new-nuncio-judged-too-traditionalist-23377
You burst my bubble. Here, I think Pagliarani might bring some sanity to the missions and Priory, and it looks like he may add fuel to an already flaming fire.
-
Interesting he picks the most liberal priest in the US Sistrict to rest with.
The CCCC thread has scandalous pics of Pagliarani, Vernoy, and others riding roller coasters. What a sight that must have been for onlookers (one step away from Novus Ordo priests boogying down at Mass).
Will they be hitting Disney World this visit?
Rome would surely approve! Perhaps that’s the point?
There is a great deal of chaos in the Florida missions. The priory has become a circus. I’m not saying there are not good priests here, but the leadership is weak.
-
Like this one... "bishop" Thomas Gullickson (https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bgull.html). Good friends with "bishop" Huonder and the neo-SSPX. Was Apostolic Nuncio to Switzerland just a few years ago. Now, conveniently, "retired" and living in South Dakota.
https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bgull.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gullickson
https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/switzerland-new-nuncio-judged-too-traditionalist-23377
Just out of curiosity, got to wonder why this bishop was never appointed to a diocese, even as an auxiliary bishop. Is that common?
Maybe had to do with his traditionalist sympathies?
-
Just out of curiosity, got to wonder why this bishop was never appointed to a diocese, even as an auxiliary bishop. Is that common?
Maybe had to do with his traditionalist sympathies?
He was obviously very close to someone in the office of the Vatican Secretary of State. He must have been seen as "useful" to someone "important," like Sodano, Bertone, or his own principal consecrator, who was a functionary in the Secretary of State.
He was a Vatican diplomat like Vigano.
-
Just out of curiosity, got to wonder why this bishop was never appointed to a diocese, even as an auxiliary bishop. Is that common?
Maybe had to do with his traditionalist sympathies?
There are many bishops who never work on a particular diocese. They are mostly diplomats, or people who occupy high positions in the Roman Curia.
A good example is Pope Pius XII.
He was a bishop for almost 22 years before becoming Pope, and he was never attached to any diocese. He was always a diplomat, even when he was still just a priest.
-
- They are ALREADY preparing the faithful for eventual consecrations by keeping the conversation in the public domain and raising expectations for their eventuality (just as +Fellay did by his constant conferences about “relations with Rome”
This empty announcement by the accordist blog Rorate Coeli is simply more of the same:
Keep the idea of new SSPX bishops alive in the Traddieland consciousness, and when it happens, it will seem to have simply been inevitable, and natural. Expected, even.
”Hey, we’re trads, but we’re not the enemy of the Hoky Father! Why shouldn’t we accept the bishops he gives us? It corrects the injustice we’ve operated under all these years!”
Rorate Coeli is simply chipping in toward that end by posting this one-paragraph blurb.
-
This empty announcement by the accordist blog Rorate Coeli is simply more of the same:
Keep the idea of new SSPX bishops alive in the Traddieland consciousness, and when it happens, it will seem to have simply been inevitable, and natural. Expected, even.
”Hey, we’re trads, but we’re not the enemy of the Hoky Father! Why shouldn’t we accept the bishops he gives us? It corrects the injustice we’ve operated under all these years!”
Rorate Coeli is simply chipping in toward that end by posting this one-paragraph blurb.
Yes, the technique is known as predictive programming.
-
This empty announcement by the accordist blog Rorate Coeli is simply more of the same:
Keep the idea of new SSPX bishops alive in the Traddieland consciousness, and when it happens, it will seem to have simply been inevitable, and natural. Expected, even.
”Hey, we’re trads, but we’re not the enemy of the Hoky Father! Why shouldn’t we accept the bishops he gives us? It corrects the injustice we’ve operated under all these years!”
Rorate Coeli is simply chipping in toward that end by posting this one-paragraph blurb.
Sean,
Are you a Sede now?
-
Sean,
Are you a Sede now?
It was a typo not worth correcting :laugh2:
-
Sean,
Are you a Sede now?
Sean communicates with and supports the hidden pontiff.
(https://www.americamagazine.org/sites/default/files/styles/article_image_750_x_503_/public/main_image/viago.png?itok=urWR-FwD)
Pope Viggy
-
I will believe it when I see it.
-
From the prior of our chapel:
“You may have heard about the upcoming project of the SSPX to consecrate more bishops. Tomorrow I will let you know what the priests have been told about it.”
-
From the prior of our chapel:
“You may have heard about the upcoming project of the SSPX to consecrate more bishops. Tomorrow I will let you know what the priests have been told about it.”
Let us all know what he says.
-
It feels like Baptists trying to figure out the Rapture date. If they do finally figure it out soon, good. But I don't have hope.
-
I don’t doubt they said it, but it is inconceivable that after condemning the consecration of +Faure for having proceeded without papal approval, they themselves would do so.
I could, however, imagine them pretending to consecrate without explicit approval (with a wink from Rome), to pretend to have escaped Roman subservience, but rest assured, whomever is consecrated will have at least tacit permission from Rome.
I’m not commenting on if they will or won’t, or who’s right or who’s wrong. Above my paygrade frankly.
but I can see an internally consistent logic under which modern sspx could condemn williamsons consecrations and yet eventually do their own
it seems like sspx current logic, for better or worse, is that the Holy Father (and they accept Francis as such) should be obeyed UNLESS obedience is impossible or sinful
so the idea is we can’t celebrate the NO because that’s sinful, we can’t celebrate the Indult because that’s sinful (because the precondition for doing so is accepting the NO as licit which it’s not) and we can’t leave our faithful without sacraments or priests because that’s wrong. The sspx probably (for better or for worse) thinks that the new rite ordinations are valid, but you still wanna have priests that don’t believe/teach V2 errors and so on
It’s a trickier case to make that you “have to” consecrate bishops when you still have four of them. It’s a trickier case to make that this is an act that is absolutely necessary to save souls. Sspx could think this is wrong, but could still think consecrations would be justified if the alternative was leaving the faithful without any bishops at all
this seems to me internally consistent, even if it may be wrong or naive or whatever. When Benedict (again, if you wanna say it was deceptive, fine) seemed willing to meet sspx in the middle, giving wider permission for Latin masses, lifting the excommunications, etc, the sspx was willing to try to work with him. When Francis gave faculties for confessions, the sspx may have felt like they could be regularized without having to concede anything (I kinda understand the logic also, IF Francis is a consistent liberal, he might be just as willing to allow Sspx as to allow leftist priests to operate. I think increasingly NOW we are seeing he is not consistently liberal/lax, by virtue of his investigation of Strickland and whatnot). If I recall, David pagliariani took a harder line against Rome post traditiones custodes. Maybe not as hard as you’d like, but harder
now to be clear I’m not really trying to argue sspx is right and resistance is wrong. I’m just arguing that it seems like a divergence of two different principles. Sspx reaistance (by analogy) says “the father is abusive so we don’t have to do anything he says” while Sspx says “father is really bad and negligent so sometimes we have to fend for ourselves.” I actually think the former more quickly:/likely leads to SV as at least a theoretical possibility but I feel like I’m getting too close to taking sides (which I kinda didn’t want to) if I push this too far
-
I’m not commenting on if they will or won’t, or who’s right or who’s wrong. Above my paygrade frankly.
but I can see an internally consistent logic under which modern sspx could condemn williamsons consecrations and yet eventually do their own
it seems like sspx current logic, for better or worse, is that the Holy Father (and they accept Francis as such) should be obeyed UNLESS obedience is impossible or sinful
Well, that's generally the thesis of modern R&R (except, say, Father Chazal's sedeprivationism) that you must obey unless you can't. What's at issue here is that the claim of when it's "impossible" to obey can be very subjective. Bishop Williamson believed that the good of souls and the good of the Church required additional bishops, and thus he could not obey. SSPX might claim that the good of souls did not require consecrations. So they're arguing about a prudential judgment.
-
From the prior of our chapel:
“You may have heard about the upcoming project of the SSPX to consecrate more bishops. Tomorrow I will let you know what the priests have been told about it.”
So. What he said was:
Father Pagliarini recently gave a conference at Econe where he confirmed with certainty that the Society is moving ahead with the consecration of Bishops. What was left unsaid was:
-whom the candidates will be
-how many candidates there will be (though the word Bishops was explicitly used so fair to assume it will be more than 1)
-when the consecrations will take place, although the implication was that it will be within 1 year.
The Society will submit the list of candidates to be consecration to Rome to petition their approval, but the consecrations are a certainty regardless of whether this approval is given.
-
Apologies that no more definitive information was given, but this would seem to corroborate what Sean and several others have said - namely that we are in the conditioning phase where the faithful and priests are being prepped for a more definitive announcement.
-
So. What he said was:
Father Pagliarini recently gave a conference at Econe where he confirmed with certainty that the Society is moving ahead with the consecration of Bishops. What was left unsaid was:
-whom the candidates will be
-how many candidates there will be (though the word Bishops was explicitly used so fair to assume it will be more than 1)
-when the consecrations will take place, although the implication was that it will be within 1 year.
The Society will submit the list of candidates to be consecration to Rome to petition their approval, but the consecrations are a certainty regardless of whether this approval is given.
To others:
See my previous comments.
If I said it, it’s a fact.
-
Apologies that no more definitive information was given, but this would seem to corroborate what Sean and several others have said - namely that we are in the conditioning phase where the faithful and priests are being prepped for a more definitive announcement.
Nothing to apologize for. It was what it was. Thanks for sharing. Key to all of it will be who the candidates are. Unless they're to Bergoglio's liking, I can see the list being the key leverage point. "We'll give you approval, but for these candidates." ... the ones who are Modernist infiltrators.
-
If I said it, it’s a fact.
:laugh1: ... just like the June 30 consecrations.
-
:laugh1: ... just like the June 30 consecrations.
That was reported as trial balloon-rumor, not fact, numb nuts.
-
The Society will submit the list of candidates to be consecration to Rome to petition their approval, but the consecrations are a certainty regardless of whether this approval is given.
I have no reason to doubt your report, I believe that you are telling the truth of what you have heard, but I really cannot see this part happening at all.
-
Well, that's generally the thesis of modern R&R (except, say, Father Chazal's sedeprivationism) that you must obey unless you can't. What's at issue here is that the claim of when it's "impossible" to obey can be very subjective. Bishop Williamson believed that the good of souls and the good of the Church required additional bishops, and thus he could not obey. SSPX might claim that the good of souls did not require consecrations. So they're arguing about a prudential judgment.
Right, I agree that it is subjective, I was just arguing that I don’t necessarily think it’s inconsistent to argue that Lefevre was justified in doing consecrations, and that he SSPX would be justified in eventually doing consecrations, but that William sin was not justified to do them when he did them. I was only arguing for a theoretical possibility, not necessarily correctness.
That being said, I am genuinely curious if this is Williamson’s actual position, that Rome must be obeyed unless obedience would be harmful to souls, or if he just believes, Rome doesn’t need to be obeyed period Because it is modernist. The general vibe I am seeing from the resistance crowd is that Rome doesn’t have to be obeyed at all because it is modernist, which doesn’t seem as consistent to me. I don’t know enough about the whole back-and-forth debate about Father Chazals position, so I will refrain from commenting about that. I will say, though that what you describe does seem like an internally consistent way to get around having g to give obedience to Rome. But again, this would just mean the SSPX is operating with a different premise.
I think to get from the SSPX to indult you would have to actually start arguing either that Rome could not, or at least has not given any dangerous commands
-
"Giving obedience to Rome" is also subjective, depending on the question, depending on the person (from Rome) you're dealing with. How many times over the last 6 decades has someone from Rome told the sspx "Yes, we agree." and then, someone else from Rome steps in, and says, "No, you can't do that." This happened numerous times when Benedict-then-Ratzinger was negotiating with +ABL prior to the 1988 consecrations. +ABL was getting the run-around and new-rome was purposefully stalling. Finally, +ABL saw through the deception and cut off discussions.
And how many other times have multiple new-rome "theologians" said the sspx is "in schism" (and it's reported all over the news). And then, someone else who is sspx-friendly, says, "Well, no they're not."
Lies, deception, confusion. We Trads can't give "obedience" to new-rome even if we wanted to. Because "obedience" and their "commands" constantly change, depending on which Modernist is talking.
At this point, after 60+ years of this nonsense, (with +Francis being the most anti-Trad "pope" in Church history), we are well within our rights/common sense to just ignore new-rome until God grants the Church some normalcy again. It's new-rome's fault that we can't trust them. They're the Modernists; they're the liars.