Author Topic: Question for Non Sedevacantists ONLY (Read 4534 times)

Cantarella · « **on:** May 20, 2014, 04:01:35 PM »

What will happen when the SSPX bishops die of age?

What ecclesiastical solution can we realistically expect as to not become schismatic?

This is a legitimate question, for only serious answers.

Thanks

Bartholemew · « **Reply #1 on:** May 20, 2014, 04:09:10 PM »

This is not something that one should worry about and is beyond our control.
We have to remember that God is control regardless of how bad the crisis in the church is and that He will see to it that His church carries on and is never abandoned as He promised.

songbird · « **Reply #2 on:** May 20, 2014, 04:10:05 PM »

Read Chapter 12 of Daniel. Ponder it.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #3 on:** May 20, 2014, 04:18:35 PM »

I am confused by the question.

Can't the bishops now get together and consecrate a bishop?

Pre-1951 or so before Pius XII enacted this rule to prevent communist bishops from starting their own church, this was standard procedure.

Now that the SSPX is down to three bishops, does anyone know if they have any plans?

Bishops consecrate bishops and this should not be seen as a "schismatic" act - unless you're an anti-Catholic bigot posing as a conciliar cleric.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #4 on:** May 20, 2014, 05:56:32 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

I am confused by the question.

Can't the bishops now get together and consecrate a bishop?

Pre-1951 or so before Pius XII enacted this rule to prevent communist bishops from starting their own church, this was standard procedure.

Now that the SSPX is down to three bishops, does anyone know if they have any plans?

Bishops consecrate bishops and this should not be seen as a "schismatic" act - unless you're an anti-Catholic bigot posing as a conciliar cleric.

No:

Episcopal consecrations in the Latin Church have been reserved to the Holy See since the 15th century:

"By the 11th century..., because of the abuses that arose on the part of the Metropolitans at times, the consecration of bishops gradually began to be reserved in some places to the Supreme Pontiff, and then by the 15th century reservation became universal [and only in the Latin Church]."

(V. P. Palazzini, Dictionrium, cit at the word, “mandatum apostlicuм.”)

Cited in:

http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm

Centroamerica · « **Reply #5 on:** May 20, 2014, 06:46:26 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Capt McQuigg
I am confused by the question.

Can't the bishops now get together and consecrate a bishop?

Pre-1951 or so before Pius XII enacted this rule to prevent communist bishops from starting their own church, this was standard procedure.

Now that the SSPX is down to three bishops, does anyone know if they have any plans?

Bishops consecrate bishops and this should not be seen as a "schismatic" act - unless you're an anti-Catholic bigot posing as a conciliar cleric.

No:

Episcopal consecrations in the Latin Church have been reserved to the Holy See since the 15th century:

"By the 11th century..., because of the abuses that arose on the part of the Metropolitans at times, the consecration of bishops gradually began to be reserved in some places to the Supreme Pontiff, and then by the 15th century reservation became universal [and only in the Latin Church]."

(V. P. Palazzini, Dictionrium, cit at the word, “mandatum apostlicuм.”)

Cited in:

http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm

I fail to see how this renders any future consecrations "schismatic". They should've consecrated a new Brazilian bishop when Dom Rifan defected. The episcopal powers are the life source of Tradition in the Church. The numbers should've never been allowed to decrease to begin with. So now there are 600 SSPX priests and a million or more faithful and somehow we only have half as many bishops as 2 decades ago?

2Vermont · « **Reply #6 on:** May 20, 2014, 06:49:31 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

I am confused by the question.

Can't the bishops now get together and consecrate a bishop?

Pre-1951 or so before Pius XII enacted this rule to prevent communist bishops from starting their own church, this was standard procedure.

Now that the SSPX is down to three bishops, does anyone know if they have any plans?

Bishops consecrate bishops and this should not be seen as a "schismatic" act - unless you're an anti-Catholic bigot posing as a conciliar cleric.

Yeah, I don't get it. Why haven't there been additional consecrations?

TKGS · « **Reply #7 on:** May 20, 2014, 07:50:36 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Yeah, I don't get it. Why haven't there been additional consecrations?

Perhaps it is because the Society does not think they need additional bishops at this time. I would fully expect that when all of the Society bishops are in their 70s or better or when a couple of them die, the remaining bishops will consecrate successor bishops just as Archbishop Lefebvre did.

That is, if they haven't signed an agreement and was regularized within the Conciliar church.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #8 on:** May 20, 2014, 08:06:50 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: SeanJohnson
Quote from: Capt McQuigg
I am confused by the question.

Can't the bishops now get together and consecrate a bishop?

Pre-1951 or so before Pius XII enacted this rule to prevent communist bishops from starting their own church, this was standard procedure.

Now that the SSPX is down to three bishops, does anyone know if they have any plans?

Bishops consecrate bishops and this should not be seen as a "schismatic" act - unless you're an anti-Catholic bigot posing as a conciliar cleric.

No:

Episcopal consecrations in the Latin Church have been reserved to the Holy See since the 15th century:

"By the 11th century..., because of the abuses that arose on the part of the Metropolitans at times, the consecration of bishops gradually began to be reserved in some places to the Supreme Pontiff, and then by the 15th century reservation became universal [and only in the Latin Church]."

(V. P. Palazzini, Dictionrium, cit at the word, “mandatum apostlicuм.”)

Cited in:

http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm

I fail to see how this renders any future consecrations "schismatic". They should've consecrated a new Brazilian bishop when Dom Rifan defected. The episcopal powers are the life source of Tradition in the Church. The numbers should've never been allowed to decrease to begin with. So now there are 600 SSPX priests and a million or more faithful and somehow we only have half as many bishops as 2 decades ago?

Who said anything about future consecrations being schismatic?

McQuigg said it was the common practice before 1951 for bishops to get together and do their own consecrations.

I provided the quote to show that was not the case, not to say that the SSPX would not be justified (by necessity) in performing future consecrations.

ihsv · « **Reply #9 on:** May 20, 2014, 09:08:19 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Yeah, I don't get it. Why haven't there been additional consecrations?

My guess is that it would upset Fellay's plans to reintegrate with the Conciliar Church.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #10 on:** May 20, 2014, 09:51:09 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: 2Vermont
Yeah, I don't get it. Why haven't there been additional consecrations?

Perhaps it is because the Society does not think they need additional bishops at this time. I would fully expect that when all of the Society bishops are in their 70s or better or when a couple of them die, the remaining bishops will consecrate successor bishops just as Archbishop Lefebvre did.

That is, if they haven't signed an agreement and was regularized within the Conciliar church.

+F is obviously positioning himself to become the only original bishop remaining, using +W as an "example" for the other two. "It's my way or the highway."

Nonetheless, he's not about to do any unapproved consecration(s) because of the following:

Quote from: ihsv

Quote from: 2Vermont
Yeah, I don't get it. Why haven't there been additional consecrations?

My guess is that it would upset Fellay's plans to reintegrate with the Conciliar Church.

While he might like to have his cake and eat it too, he's much more practical than to expect that would be possible. We can see the direction he's going, because it has been consistent for all of his 19 years as S.G. Why would he change now? With the precision of a Swiss watch, he has methodically placed his yes-men into voting positions in the General Chapter as Capitulants who are willing to capitulate to his nefarious agenda -- whatever it is.

+F will not consecrate any new bishop(s). That would destroy 19 years of diligent infiltration of ABL's Society! It would set them back to 1988 all over again! Ironically, he was the odd man out who was given a chance by the Founder, who therefore made a mistake in his judgment of character, unfortunately. ABL made a LOT of wise decisions correctly, but apparently he made one serious mistake. Now we're living with it, and fortunately for him, he's not.

.

Wessex · « **Reply #11 on:** May 21, 2014, 04:25:49 AM »

Since the Society is verging on conciliarism, there will be plenty of conservative types prepared to push a bit of old culture. In terms of advancing the demands of the old order, the SSPX bishops collectively have been something of a wet blanket. They may have unilaterally helped in producing a handful of priests each year and slapped a lot of kids' faces but the political value in having a body of bishops to face-down those in the new church has been lost. I see litle point in creating more toothless bishops. Did they not once upon a time lead armies into battle?

Centroamerica · « **Reply #12 on:** May 21, 2014, 07:20:56 AM »

Quote from: Wessex

each year and slapped a lot of kids' faces but

Can you despirtualize a Holy Sacrament with more banal words than these?

soulguard · « **Reply #13 on:** May 21, 2014, 07:44:51 AM »

The question of what to do regarding whether to consecrate another bishop will be answered when you decide what to do about an outrageous heretic of a pope.

How long will the SSPX be content to tolerate the persecution of traditional groups while seeing its place with the romans and not the likes of SSPV CMRI etc.

The SSPX is the only group large enough to be able to fix this mess by starting another hierarchy.

I hope that Francis does something soon that will outrage traditional Catholics so much that you will no longer see your place under his rule and will start to look to the real solution to this crisis, which is to replace the hierarchy of freemasons altogether with Catholics and purify the church.

The novus ordo is not the Catholic church, the church exists only in those who hold the faith whole and inviolate, therefore neither Francis nor cardinals nor bishops nor priests of the novus ordo nor their laity have any claim to be Catholic and the church does not inclulde them. It is high time that traditionalists see this, break free from apostate ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ infested rome, and obey the call from heaven saying "COME OUT OF HER MY CHILDREN".

Right now the modernists are laughing at us.
They say "A ha! This little phrase of cannon law here and there stops the Catholics from fighting us effectively. They are paralysed by their own law. Our infiltration masterplan worked flawlessly"

( im not a SV but think like one and want to solve this crisis)

hugeman · « **Reply #14 on:** May 21, 2014, 07:49:15 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: 2Vermont
Yeah, I don't get it. Why haven't there been additional consecrations?

Perhaps it is because the Society does not think they need additional bishops at this time. I would fully expect that when all of the Society bishops are in their 70s or better or when a couple of them die, the remaining bishops will consecrate successor bishops just as Archbishop Lefebvre did.

That is, if they haven't signed an agreement and was regularized within the Conciliar church.

+F is obviously positioning himself to become the only original bishop remaining, using +W as an "example" for the other two. "It's my way or the highway."

Nonetheless, he's not about to do any unapproved consecration(s) because of the following:

Quote from: ihsv
Quote from: 2Vermont
Yeah, I don't get it. Why haven't there been additional consecrations?

My guess is that it would upset Fellay's plans to reintegrate with the Conciliar Church.

While he might like to have his cake and eat it too, he's much more practical than to expect that would be possible. We can see the direction he's going, because it has been consistent for all of his 19 years as S.G. Why would he change now? With the precision of a Swiss watch, he has methodically placed his yes-men into voting positions in the General Chapter as Capitulants who are willing to capitulate to his nefarious agenda -- whatever it is.

+F will not consecrate any new bishop(s). That would destroy 19 years of diligent infiltration of ABL's Society! It would set them back to 1988 all over again! Ironically, he was the odd man out who was given a chance by the Founder, who therefore made a mistake in his judgment of character, unfortunately. ABL made a LOT of wise decisions correctly, but apparently he made one serious mistake. Now we're living with it, and fortunately for him, he's not.

.

Bp Fellay will not risk his expected position in Francis' big tent by doing something so stupid as consecrating bishops. Francis is willing to accept a lot of crazy stuff-- but the Rabbis and Cardinals in Europe will not accept more SSPX bishops. They offered one-- and that's all.
Besides, there's no need for more bishops: Fellay has already made use of Novus Ordo bishops to confirm SSPX children; he's already told "Cardinal" Canizares that the ABL would have loved his Mass; and the SSPX thought-controllers have convinced a whole generation of gullible that, of all the bishops, only FELLAY received the "grace of state" to make any important actions or decisions. So what need is there for another bishop besides Bp."that man tricked me"Fellay?
One should expect that, in the upcoming cycles of Confirmations and Ordinations, the SSPX has some of their "so many" (cardinal) friends in Rome visiting, witnessing, and performing the sacraments-- this would prove to the Romans our acceptance of Vatican II, the new sacraments, and our union with the Church and Francis.