Author Topic: No new bishops for SSPX (Read 4943 times)

Marlelar · « **on:** March 29, 2015, 11:38:37 PM »

In Father Pfeiffer's sermon where he spoke about the consecration of Fr. Faure as a bishop he said that the SSPX had stated that they would not consecrate any new bishops that are not approved of by Rome. link (approx minute 25:54) Does anyone know where I can find that in writing? Was it a statement by Menzingen or quoted in a written article?

As Father rightly points out, that would mean the death of the SSPX.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #1 on:** March 30, 2015, 04:13:08 AM »

This is no surprise for two reasons. He has one foot on Rome and he was more than willing to demote the other two in his 6 conditions to the Romans. Like the other indult communities, he will only be able to have another bishop approved by the Romans that they can trust to take the SSPX all the way home.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #2 on:** March 30, 2015, 05:34:28 AM »

Quote from: Marlelar

In Father Pfeiffer's sermon where he spoke about the consecration of Fr. Faure as a bishop he said that the SSPX had stated that they would not consecrate any new bishops that are not approved of by Rome. link (approx minute 25:54) Does anyone know where I can find that in writing? Was it a statement by Menzingen or quoted in a written article?

As Father rightly points out, that would mean the death of the SSPX.

I just listened to it and he says: "(+Fellay) admits in the press release (communique), makes it very clear..."

I had not thought about it that way but it is safe to assume that from the communique specially in view of the "6 conditions".

Matthew · « **Reply #3 on:** March 30, 2015, 10:54:56 AM »

Quote from: Marlelar

In Father Pfeiffer's sermon where he spoke about the consecration of Fr. Faure as a bishop he said that the SSPX had stated that they would not consecrate any new bishops that are not approved of by Rome. link (approx minute 25:54) Does anyone know where I can find that in writing? Was it a statement by Menzingen or quoted in a written article?

As Father rightly points out, that would mean the death of the SSPX.

It's more of a logical consequence.

The FACT is that the SSPX condemned the +Faure consecration -- a consecration that was IN EVERY MEASURABLE WAY identical to the 1988 consecrations. Done without the permission of Rome, because of necessity, intending to confer no jurisdiction, in public with plenty of witnesses, etc.

If they condemn such a consecration, emphasizing how the 1988 consecrations were a "special" or "one time thing" -- it follows that they won't be able to do the same thing next week, next year, or 5 years from now. They've tied their own hands.

So yes, in so many words they've committed themselves to two possible outcomes:

A) a deal with Rome, Rome's selection of one (compromised) bishop for the SSPX, etc. (crashing into the rocks)
or
B) annihilation (sinking to be bottom of the sea)

Either way, I want off of that boat!

Like I said -- human hope for the SSPX is *long gone*
Prepare your alternatives now, while you still have time.

Remember, the FSSP might not have a bishop, but they at least have "union with Rome" so all those who feel they need to be approved by the Conciliar Church will patronize this group.

But the SSPX has no such permission. Any "outside the Conciliar structures" traditional group had better have its own bishop, or the group is doomed.

steelcross · « **Reply #4 on:** March 30, 2015, 11:14:01 AM »

This is indeed scary. Looks like we are in the end times. No matter what happens, God has commanded that the Immacualte Heart of Mary will triumph. The consecration of Russia will take place

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** March 30, 2015, 11:23:34 AM »

Just the usual conjecture from Father Pfeiffer. SSPX would "ASK" for permission but would then do it once refused. They would leverage that alone to claim that these were not "at all" alike.

Matthew · « **Reply #6 on:** March 30, 2015, 11:58:43 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Just the usual conjecture from Father Pfeiffer. SSPX would "ASK" for permission but would then do it once refused. They would leverage that alone to claim that these were not "at all" alike.

Yes, I could see that happening.

Nevertheless, such a course of action would be disingenuous.

I agree with Sean Johnson on this point -- when the Pope himself is personally responsible for the ongoing progress of the Modernism heresy (and, in general, he is responsible for the continued nature of the Crisis in the Church), it's not necessary to ask him for a Trad bishop or two to help fight Modernism.

One can assume in this case. I don't think moral laws ever require that one "go through the motions" -- they only require that essential things take place.

When a man N is responsible for Crisis X, one can presume that man N will not do anything to oppose Crisis X. It's a question of moral certainty.

I mean, if a couple marries each other on a deserted island, does Church law require that they at least dress up a couple of cacti to be witnesses? No, the Church simply dispenses them. The Church generally believes in (and practices) common sense.

Can you safely assume that the head of Planned Parenthood, or a notorious abortion doctor, would speak at your pro-life rally? Is it even necessary to ask?
Or can we assume the answer...

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** March 30, 2015, 12:32:17 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Nevertheless, such a course of action would be disingenuous.

That's never stopped them before.

ihsv · « **Reply #8 on:** March 30, 2015, 12:47:59 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Just the usual conjecture from Father Pfeiffer. SSPX would "ASK" for permission but would then do it once refused. They would leverage that alone to claim that these were not "at all" alike.

At this point, unless something changes internally, the SSPX will never perform another consecration without Rome's approval. If they did, they would set back any progress toward "unity and understanding" by 20 years.

There will be an agreement long before the thought of consecrations even becomes a glimmer in the mind of +Fellay.

Marlelar · « **Reply #9 on:** March 30, 2015, 03:01:57 PM »

Marie Auxiliadora:

I just listened to it and he says:(+Fellay)admits in the press release (communique), makes it very clear...

I had not thought about it that way but it is safe to assume that from the communique specially in view of the "6 conditions".

===========================================================

What press release is Fr. Pfeiffer referring to? I cannot find it on the SSPX website.

[/quote]

Stubborn · « **Reply #10 on:** March 30, 2015, 03:17:34 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Marlelar
In Father Pfeiffer's sermon where he spoke about the consecration of Fr. Faure as a bishop he said that the SSPX had stated that they would not consecrate any new bishops that are not approved of by Rome. link (approx minute 25:54) Does anyone know where I can find that in writing? Was it a statement by Menzingen or quoted in a written article?

As Father rightly points out, that would mean the death of the SSPX.

It's more of a logical consequence.

The FACT is that the SSPX condemned the +Faure consecration -- a consecration that was IN EVERY MEASURABLE WAY identical to the 1988 consecrations. Done without the permission of Rome, because of necessity, intending to confer no jurisdiction, in public with plenty of witnesses, etc.

If they condemn such a consecration, emphasizing how the 1988 consecrations were a "special" or "one time thing" -- it follows that they won't be able to do the same thing next week, next year, or 5 years from now. They've tied their own hands.

So yes, in so many words they've committed themselves to two possible outcomes:

A) a deal with Rome, Rome's selection of one (compromised) bishop for the SSPX, etc. (crashing into the rocks)
or
B) annihilation (sinking to be bottom of the sea)

Either way, I want off of that boat!

Like I said -- human hope for the SSPX is *long gone*
Prepare your alternatives now, while you still have time.

Remember, the FSSP might not have a bishop, but they at least have "union with Rome" so all those who feel they need to be approved by the Conciliar Church will patronize this group.

But the SSPX has no such permission. Any "outside the Conciliar structures" traditional group had better have its own bishop, or the group is doomed.

Exactly!
Well stated Matthew.

Stubborn · « **Reply #11 on:** March 30, 2015, 03:24:08 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Matthew
Nevertheless, such a course of action would be disingenuous.

That's never stopped them before.

True, but if in fact SSPX ever did consecrate another bishop without permission from Rome, they would necessarily have to publicly admit that they were wrong in condemning +Williamson's consecration.

I mean to say that would be the proper thing for them to do if they ever decided to consecrate other bishops, whether they actually would admit such a thing, is not something that I'd hold my breath for.

Columba · « **Reply #12 on:** March 30, 2015, 05:11:21 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Matthew
Nevertheless, such a course of action would be disingenuous.

That's never stopped them before.

True, but if in fact SSPX ever did consecrate another bishop without permission from Rome, they would necessarily have to publicly admit that they were wrong in condemning +Williamson's consecration.

I mean to say that would be the proper thing for them to do if they ever decided to consecrate other bishops, whether they actually would admit such a thing, is not something that I'd hold my breath for.

Indeed, time for the Menzingen status quo is running out. They must eventually choose to

1. Compromise with Vatican modernists to obtain their permission for consecration,
2. Definitively break from Rome with Williamson-Faure-style consecrations, or
3. Discontinue ordination when the last bishop dies or leaves.

Would it be insubordinate for SSPX followers to petition their leadership about which of these three possible directions the SSPX is heading? It is only insubordinate to the extent there is a "Church of Fellay" with requirements that go beyond those required of a Catholic.

Is there a forth option? Menzingen might grit its teeth to hold out for the miraculous or chastisement-induced election of a traditionalist pope. This would be flirting with suicidal SSPX extinction for the sake of false piety while spitefully condemning those choosing to live. Williamson-Faure-style consecrations will not prevent the future elections of traditionalist popes and may in fact be instrumental in laying the foundation for such future glory.

Pilar · « **Reply #13 on:** March 30, 2015, 05:40:10 PM »

Quote from: Columba

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Matthew
Nevertheless, such a course of action would be disingenuous.

That's never stopped them before.

True, but if in fact SSPX ever did consecrate another bishop without permission from Rome, they would necessarily have to publicly admit that they were wrong in condemning +Williamson's consecration.

I mean to say that would be the proper thing for them to do if they ever decided to consecrate other bishops, whether they actually would admit such a thing, is not something that I'd hold my breath for.

Indeed, time for the Menzingen status quo is running out. They must eventually choose to

1. Compromise with Vatican modernists to obtain their permission for consecration,
2. Definitively break from Rome with Williamson-Faure-style consecrations, or
3. Discontinue ordination when the last bishop dies or leaves.

Would it be insubordinate for SSPX followers to petition their leadership about which of these three possible directions the SSPX is heading? It is only insubordinate to the extent there is a "Church of Fellay" with requirements that go beyond those required of a Catholic.

Is there a forth option? Menzingen might grit its teeth to hold out for the miraculous or chastisement-induced election of a traditionalist pope. This would be flirting with suicidal SSPX extinction for the sake of false piety while spitefully condemning those choosing to live. Williamson-Faure-style consecrations will not prevent the future elections of traditionalist popes and may in fact be instrumental in laying the foundation for such future glory.

"Would it be insubordinate for SSPX followers to petition their leadership about which of these three possible directions the SSPX is heading?"

No, it would not. As faithful who attend the Masses of the SSPX, except
Third Order Members, are not subordinate to the superiors of the SSPX in any way.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #14 on:** March 30, 2015, 06:06:47 PM »

Quote from: Marlelar

What press release is Fr. Pfeiffer referring to? I cannot find it on the SSPX website.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Communiqu-of-the-General-House-of-the-Society-of-St-Pius-X