Greetings s2srea,

I put on here all that I intended to say, so I am finished and happy to let this thread go down the memory hole. All that remains for me is to respond here and there to a worthy post like yours.

I may be a moron and an idiot for advocating that rebuilding is not rebuilding without making bishops now - in other words, that if "SSPX Resistance" is in the act of building right now, as it claims it is, then that means it must perform that act according to all that it signifies, which includes immediately increasing the number of bishops. Yes, I may be a moron and an idiot for thinking that. I'm already a moron and an idiot, so being wrong here would only add to my already profound idiocy.

Recall that I never said I was correct. In a previous post I said that I might be in error, and if I am in error then I have still done a good work because error sharpens truth. I am advocating for what I think is correct. I have not stated that I am certain I am correct. My intention in writing includes propounding ideas that all should consider, even for the purpose of refutation of those same ideas.

Fair enough. Thank you for responding and for being humble enough to admit you may be wrong on this matter. For the record, I also may be wrong, and am willing to concede that Bishop Williamson may be wrong too. At least I know we're right on matters of the Faith and Doctrine.

Couple more things to note:

1. I am not alone in my convictions, and some of those who share them are priests of God. I do not speak for them, but I am not the only human being on the Earth who thinks these thoughts.

2. There is a human wisdom in being slow, plodding, prudent, etc. in the decision to consecrate bishops. You have said, "If we have learned anything from the trad world, all we need do is look at the sedevecantists in the US, and the mess they now have with their bishops. Even without that example, anyone, I mean anyone, who ever encourages haste in the consecration of bishops is a fool."

My reply would be twofold: One, God's ways are not our ways. It is possible, I say possible, that God would sanction an immediate buildup of Catholic "firepower." We don't know. I write with courage and hope in God's mercy on me because I know that it is a distinct possibility.

I agree with these points.

Two, if you are going to cite foolishness and mistakes made in decisions to consecrate bishops for Tradition, then do not omit - if you want your argument to be perfect - the fact that, by all appearances, +ABL chose, after assiduous prayer and deliberation, at least one, maybe three, and possibly four duds. Look at the devastation, cινιℓ ωαr, possible loss of souls, strife, division, dissension, anger, destruction of reputations, ruination of relationships, mistrust, and other evils have been caused by the acts of Bishop Fellay, Bishop Tissier, Bishop de Galaretta, and even Bishop Williamson, in one degree or another.

I am willing to concede this point as well (re: the Quality of priests ++Lefebvre chose to consecrate). But if this is the case, I believe that the manner in which Bishop Williamson is choosing to lead, in taking his time with these things, is even more apt, and would only strengthen my support of him and the direction he is taking.  

If we go back down the chain of causality, we will see episcopal consecrations looming largely as one of the principle causes of the SSPX cινιℓ ωαr. If +Bernard Fellay was never made Bishop, would he have been able to carry the majority of the SSPX membership so far along the road of apostasy from the Faith? Would he have been as successful in dividing so many good priests and seminarians from the spirit and fight of +ABL? I don't think he would have been as efficacious if he were just a priest.

I could agree with this statement

But that is no reason to refuse to make more bishops. If we want the Sacraments and chapels and priests, nay rather, if we want to rebuild the Catholic City and Catholic Civilization, we have to have bishops. Episcopal consecrations are the antidote to the Church being snuffed out. If we want to continue in existence, we have to make bishops, knowing full well that they make messes and sometimes create huge problems.

Every single heresy that has ever come upon the Earth came by and through a priest, bishop, or pope. But this is no reason to stop ordaining men.

And this is where I disagree with you Cantate; Who has stated he will refuse to consecrate or ordain? Not Bishop Williamson. Why then the pressure to consecrate now? How many deacons are ready for the priesthood at this moment?

+ABL did right to make bishops, but he could not, in virtue of his human nature, see what would become of them. He had to act blindly in that regard. 25 years after his heroic act, the SSPX is in a hot cινιℓ ωαr. Nevertheless what he did was right, and his act should be repeated until such time as the Pope converts back to Catholicism.

I could be wrong. I could be right. In either case I am a moron and a foolish woman. You are certainly correct on that score.

God bless you!

As I said, I also could be very wrong on this subject; and I still stand by my statement that we are mostly agreed on the crisis. I am only voicing my support of a bishop I love very much, yet who I have never even met. I have seen consistency in his ways, and I place my trust in him in this matter.

Please be assured of my prayers, and if you can, pray for me.

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Ambrose

Not the entire hierarchy.  It is impossible for the entire hierarchy to defect.  The remaining faithful members of the hierarchy are the only rulers of the Church.

Yes I guess you are right. There must be a few faithful Bishops somewhere.

Unfortunately, they have all been consecrated according to the New Rite.  Therein presents another whole new question.

 

AMEN!!!

Quote

Even without that example, anyone, I mean anyone, who ever encourages haste in the consecration of bishops is a fool.

It is absurd because there are sometimes reasons for haste.

There are reasons right now not to have an indefinite delay - as we see now.

Who's speaking of indefinite delay? I've already pointed out in my prior posts that Bishop Williamson has said, and clarified, that he will consecrate a bishop.

Just because he hasn't given you a date or a name, is no reason to call his prudence in such an important matter indefinite.

Right, which means the delay is indefinite.

Undefined. It could be tomorrow, except it is unlikely. There will be a tipping point, a defining moment, and then we will learn of consecrations having taken place. That's what I think will happen.

Quote

Even without that example, anyone, I mean anyone, who ever encourages haste in the consecration of bishops is a fool.

It is absurd because there are sometimes reasons for haste.

There are reasons right now not to have an indefinite delay - as we see now.

Church history is full of incidents that seem inappropriate to our programmed and conditioned reflexes. It is full of scenes of raising men to the altars, the episcopal chairs, and even the papacy on the cries and tumult of the clergy and the faithful.

Indeed that is what gives me courage.

Quote from: MiserereMeiDeus

Quote from: magdalena

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Ambrose

Not the entire hierarchy.  It is impossible for the entire hierarchy to defect.  The remaining faithful members of the hierarchy are the only rulers of the Church.

Yes I guess you are right. There must be a few faithful Bishops somewhere.

Unfortunately, they have all been consecrated according to the New Rite.  Therein presents another whole new question.

 

AMEN!!!

That is another reason why we are in a true state of emergency.

In 1988 a lot of properly ordained prelates were still walking the Earth. These could have joined Tradition at any time. How many are there now?

I forgot to add into my list of signs that prove we are in even greater straights than we were in 1998 the following:

- Abdication of BXVI - this relates directly to authority

- FI: first pope in history not properly consecrated a priest and bishop - his ordination is according to the false, anglicanized rite, and is therefore not in any way certain, but suspect


 

“Once there are no more valid priests they’ll permit the Latin Mass.”
— Rev. Carl Pulvermacher
Former Editor, The Angelus

Summorum Pontificuм?

Regarding the suspect nature of NO ordinations: apparently it is the NO episcopal consecration in particular which was changed so much that its validity and efficacy are questionable. I recall reading that this is something that ABL was very concerned about. If the men "consecrated" according to the new rite are in fact not real bishops and do not have the power to ordain priests, then even if the NO Holy Orders rite were potentially valid, no priestly formation would occur -- in which case their sacraments would not be efficacious either, and even if technically the NO were valid and licit and all that if properly performed with the proper intent, etc., as Michael Davies and others have asserted, no Transubstantiation would occur if attempted by a "priest" "ordained" by a "bishop" who did not have the power to ordain.

Oh, I see ultrarigorist & al.: "The lack of direction evident in certain ECs has bothered me too". Well, may be +W might decide to quit the ECs altogether and so, problem solved! That will please you (& al.), wouldn't it? With friends like you (& Co.) +W doesn't need any enemies (translated from Spanish: "Con amigos como ustedes, no preciso enemigos").