CathInfo.com

#55: Contradiction (SSPX Denounces the Episcopal Consecration of Bishop Faure):

On March 19, 2015 Bishop Williamson consecrated Jean Michel Faure bishop at the Holy Cross Monastery in New Fribourg, Brazil.  

That same day, the SSPX media machine went into high gear trying to distinguish between Bishop Faure's episcopal consecration and those of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988.

Surely they were troubled by the thought of the parallels so evident to the clergy and faithful of the SSPX and Resistance, and in an attempt to limit the damage, published articles trying to distinguish between the two.

The first one was a communique of the General House on 3/19/15, in which it was alleged that:

"In 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre had clearly indicated his intention to consecrate auxiliary bishops who would have no jurisdiction, because of the state of necessity in which the Society of St. Pius X and faithful Catholics found themselves at that time."
https://sspx.org/en/consecration-of-fr-jean-michel-faure

But informed readers must have been quite perplexed to see this fact alleged as a distinction between the 1988 and 2015 consecrations, since in the reading of the Mandatum Apostolicuм, Bishop Williamson clearly stated that:

"By this handing down of the episcopal power of Orders, no episcopal power of jurisdiction is assumed or granted..."
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/official-statement-by-bishop-williamson-regarding-consecration/

In fact, if one compares the Mandatum Apostolicuм of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 with that of Bishop Williamson in 2015, he will note that the first couple paragraphs are nearly identical.  The only real difference is the addition of a 3rd paragraph by Bishop Williamson explaining that the liberalized SSPX will not be an option to obtain a bishop for Tradition.  
(See Archbishop Lefebvre's mandate here: https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_I/1988-06-30B.htm)

The SSPX article continued:

"After having done everything conceivable to gain permission from the Holy See, Archbishop Lefebvre proceeded with the solemn consecrations on June 30, 1988..."

But in arguing along these lines, the SSPX makes a twofold self-condemnation:

Firstly, the SSPX made no attempt whatsoever to secure the permission of modernist Rome in 1991, when three of its bishops consecrated Licinio Rangel to the episcopate following upon the death of Bishop Castro de Mayer.  Therefore, if Bishop Williamson's actions were odious in 2015 for making no attempt to secure the permission of Rome, then so were the SSPX's actions in 1991.

Secondly, the reason why the SSPX never approached Rome regarding the 1991 consecration of Licinio Rangel is because, as it used to teach, the Pope would have said "no," but such refusal would not have relieved them of their duty to come to the aid of souls trapped in necessity, so there's no point in asking:

"But it is the pope himself who is favoring or promoting a course for the Church infected by neo-Modernism which threatens the goods fundamental to souls, goods indispensable for the salvation of souls, e.g., faith and morals. If the pope himself is the cause or partial-cause, and even, given his supreme authority, the ultimate cause of the grave and general spiritual necessity in which there is no hope of help from the lawful pastors, then what effect will recourse to the pope obtain in such circuмstances? He will be physically accessible, but morally inaccessible. Recourse to him will be certainly physically possible but morally impossible, and if it be attempted, it will result naturally in the pope's saying "No" to the act which the extraordinary circuмstances require "in order that adequate provision be made" (ST, op. cit. in Part 1) for the grave general necessity of souls."
https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm

And:

"The state of necessity in the case of Archbishop Lefebvre is precisely the case in which the lawmaker cannot impose the application of the law because it has become, by force of particular circuмstances, contrary to the common good and to the divine natural and positive law. On his part, under the pressure of a precept of divine natural and positive law, “…the subject [e.g., Archbishop Lefebvre – Ed.] not only may, but he is bound not to observe the law, whether he asks or does not ask for permission to do so from the superior.”

Regarding seeking permissions from the superior, Suarez explains (speaking precisely of the pope) that here, “it is not a question of interpreting the will of the superior, but [a question] of his power” in order to know what is not necessary to ask the superior, because it is permitted to make use of “doctrinal rules” or “principles of theology and law,” given that “one knows with more certitude the power [of the superior] which is not free, rather than his will, which is free [emphasis added].” For that reason the subject, having prudently examined the circuмstances and been informed by the “doctrinal rules” or by the “principles of theology and law” that is “beyond the power of legislator” to bind anyone to respect the law when it causes grave harm to so many souls, and that to obey in such a case would be “evil and a sin,” he may not - indeed, he must not - submit to the law or to the command“on his own authority,” “by his own judgment.” Hence, by his own initiative, he refuses submission “without recourse to the superior,” that is to say, without any dispensation or approval on the part of the said superior. The reason, writes Suarez, is: that in such a case the authority of the superior cannot have any effect; indeed, even if he were to will that the subject, after having had recourse to him, should observe the law, the latter would not be able to obey him because he must obey God rather than man and hence in such a case its is out of place (“impertinens”) to ask for permission."
https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm

Which is all another way of saying that in 1988, as Archbishop Lefebvre said, he hoped until the last minute that there might be a bit of loyalty shown by Rome, but to no avail.  By 1991 at the time of the Bishop Rangel consecration, there was no point in asking permission any longer, since there was no doubt as to Rome's refusal (a refusal which nevertheless, was powerless to relieve the bishops of their grave duty to souls trapped in necessity).  Therefore, it would be impertinent to ask permission for what must be done in any case.

Now, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander:"

If the passages above justified the SSPX in 1991, then it is incomprehensible how they do not justify Bishop Williamson in 2015.

For the SSPX to condemn the consecration of Bishop Faure, then, is to serve as a self-indictment.

And if the example of the 1991 consecration of Bishop Rangel must be admitted as a righteous deed (and it was), then this nugatory difference between the 1988 and 1991/2015 consecrations must be dismissed as lacking substance, which in turn leaves the 1988 and 2015 episcopal consecrations practically identical:

-They both featured practically the same Apostolic Mandate;

-They both based themselves on the state of necessity;

-They both explicitly announced the withholding of any apostolic mission (i.e., jurisdiction);

-And they both took place from a desire to provide for Tradition.

#57: Contradiction (Bishop Fellay Saying Everything and its Opposite Regarding a Deal with Rome):

In 2001, Cardinal Hoyos informs us that Bishop Fellay was open, already at that time, to the possibility of a practical accord for the SSPX, noting only that doing so might cause some internal problems, but not opposing such a solution in principle:

"After these events, in noting your good will and based on the fact that your Fraternity certainly was not spreading any heretical doctrine and did not maintain schismatic attitudes, I had dared you to propose, without consulting anyone first, to set a possible date for reintegration. I suggested as a possible date the Solemnity of Easter 2001, and Your Excellency, although surprised, did not exclude this possibility, while expressing in any case that, probably, at the center of the Society of St. Pius X a few problems would arise."
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4650

But confronted with the intervention of Bishop Williamson and the Dominicans of Avrille, Bishop Fellay hit the brakes, and by 2003, while secretly considering how to avert those obstacles (as his prior sponsorship of SSPX participation in the GREC unequivocally demonstrates), was saying the opposite in Letter #63 while he bided his time:

"In the eyes of Rome, the Campos-Rome agreement was merely meant to be the prelude to our own “regularization” in the Society of Saint Pius X, but in our eyes what is happening to our former friends should rather serve as a lesson to us.  Generally speaking, Rome means, all things being equal, to come to an agreement with the SSPX...The day will come, we are sure and certain, when Rome will come back to Rome’s own Tradition and restore it to its rightful place, and we long with all our hearts for that blessed day. For the time being, however, things are not yet at that point, and to foster illusions would be deadly for the SSPX, as we can see, when we follow the turn of events in Campos."
http://sspx.org/en/publications/letters/january-2003-superior-generals-letter-63-798

But then the alleged fulfillment of the two preconditions for doctrinal discussions was supposed to have evinced a new desire for Tradition in Rome, and consequently, by March - 2012, Bishop Fellay wanted you to believe that the SSPX must rethink its former resistance to a merely practical accord.  After all, the SSPX needed to help Rome convert the Church back to Tradition:

"The situation of the Church may require us to take prudent measures related and relevant to the specific situation. The General Chapter of 2006 issued a clear course of action in regard to our situation with Rome. We give priority to faith without searching our side a practical solution to resolve the issue BEFORE doctrinal.
This is not a principle but a line of conduct which must govern our actions. We're here in front of reasoning in which the major premise is the affirmation of the principle of the primacy of faith to remain Catholic. The minor premise is a historical observation on the current situation of the Church and the practical conclusion is based on the virtue of prudence governing human action, nothing to seek agreement to the detriment of the faith. In 2006, the heresies continue to emerge, the same authorities and spread the modern spirit of Vatican II modernist and imposed on all like a steamroller (is the minor premise). It is impossible to reach a workable agreement unless authorities become, otherwise we would be crushed, shredded, destroyed or subjected to such strong pressure that we could not resist ('s the conclusion).

If the minor premise changed, ie if there is a change in the situation of the Church in relation to the Tradition, this could lead to a corresponding change in the conclusion, that our principles have not changed at all! As Providence is expressed through the reality of the facts, to know His will, we must follow closely the reality of the Church, observing, examining what happens.

But there is no doubt that since 2006, we are witnessing a development in the Church...It maybe in Rome where these things are more obvious! We now have friendly contacts in the departments most important, also among those closest to the Pope!

Our perception of the situation is such that we believe that the efforts of the hierarchy can not stop aging over this movement birthplace she wants and expects even vaguely - the restoration of the Church.  If this is true, and that's for sure, it demands of us a new position in relation to the official Church."
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/cor-unum-march-2012-bishop-fellay-to-sspx-members/

But this announced willingness to overturn the position of the 2006 General Chapter, thereby departing from Archbishop Lefebvre's post-consecratory posture vis-a-vis unconverted Rome, had ignited the furor which spawned the Resistance, and faced with growing opposition, Bishop Fellay had to retreat, declaring only one year later:

"Here we are then, at Easter 2013, and the situation in the Church remains almost unchanged. The words of Archbishop Lefebvre take on a prophetic tone. It has all come to pass, and it all continues for the greater misfortune of souls who no longer hear from their pastors the message of salvation."
https://sspx.org/en/publications/letters/april-2013-superior-generals-letter-80-1856

But viewed historically, one sees clearly all these contradictions were really nothing other than taking "two steps forward, and one step back:"

When necessary, Bishop Fellay would assume a traditional posture ad infra to reassure the clergy and faithful, while retaining his reconciliationist policy toward Rome ad extra as he marched steadily and relentlessly toward a recognition by unconverted Rome.

#59: Contradiction ("Abnormal" Canonical Status: Fr. Pfluger vs Bishop Tissier de Mallerais):

In October-2012, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger gave an interview to Kirchliche Umschau regarding the situation of the SSPX, in which he made the following comment:

"There is no denying the obligation to take an active part in overcoming the crisis. And this combat begins with us, by desiring to overcome our abnormal canonical status."
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/10/sspx-rome-we-are-back-to-square-one.html

The idea that there was anything "abnormal" about Catholics who had remained faithful to Tradition was certainly a subversive idea, because as the Avrille Dominicans explained (verbally), "Naturally, if you convince the clergy and faithful that they are in an abnormal situation, they will try to normalize it."

In any case, a couple years after Fr. Pfluger's statement (which had been making the rounds from SSPX pulpits, conferences, apologetics, and internal letters for years), the old Bishop Tissier briefly reemerged, and in a blistering indictment of those he called "false friends" who suggested the SSPX needed to cure its "abnormal situation," responded:

"Sixth point, let us reject also the wrong supposition of some of our friends, bad friends, who say the Society of St. Pius X is now in an abnormal situation. Because we are not acknowledged by the church.  The Society of St. Pius X must come back to a normal situation and receive a canonical status from Rome. That is wrong! That is false! We are not in an abnormal situation. The abnormal situation is in Rome! We possess the Faith, the Sacrament and the disposition to submit to the pope. We have the Faith, the true Sacrament and the disposition of to obey the pope! And the bishops. We are of the disposition. We are not in an abnormal situation. The abnormal situation is in Rome, now! We have not to come back! These people in Rome have to come back, to Tradition. Let us not reverse the reality. We have not to come back. But these Romans have to come back to their Tradition. To the Tradition of the Church."

[Transcript: https://www.therecusant.com/tissier-1jan2015]