A slam-dunk argument for the Resistance: the neo-SSPX has most certainly changed in their attitude towards consecrations without papal mandate.

We even have watertight proof of this assertion, in the form of a docuмent on the SSPX's own website!

https://sspx.org/en/consecration-of-fr-jean-michel-faure

(I have attached it as a PDF below, in case this article ever goes down the Memory Hole!)

They still have their condemnation of Bp Faure's consecration on their website. But Bp. Faure's consecration was, in every way, identical to the 4 bishops consecration by +Lefebvre in 1988.  Long story short, the SSPX will either merge with Rome (FSSP-style and become FSSP) or they will DIE from lack of bishops: because they have sworn off any future "illicit consecrations without papal mandate"! This can't be denied; the proof is right there on sspx.org.

Several on CI have said on multiple occasions: "Still no deal. We've been waiting, waiting... (insert meme here with skeleton on a park bench with the caption Still Waiting for an SSPX-Rome Deal)"

But they HAVE to make a deal eventually -- they are fully committed to regularization -- to becoming FSSP part 2. If they somehow don't do this, they will die as an organization, because they won't have any living bishops eventually! And they have sworn off any future Consecrations -- so they're completely committed now to this new direction.


The argument is as follows:

1. The recent Consecration of Bishop Faure (plus those of Bp. Thomas Aquinas, Bp Zendejas) are fundamentally the same as the +Lefebvre Consecrations of 1988. (can anyone successfully dispute this point?)
2. The SSPX was obviously in favor of those 1988 Consecrations. (this is also a rock-solid assertion)
3. But they are now against the same kind of Consecrations when they take place today (done publicly, because of necessity, no Papal Mandate, for the good of the Church, for purposes of continuation of Tradition and distributing certain Sacraments only, no pretense to confer jurisdiction because that would be schismatic) - see the proof above on the sspx.org website.
4. Therefore the SSPX of today has broken with the SSPX of yesterday. (logical conclusion)
5. But if the SSPX has changed, or broken with their former selves, then A) the Resistance most certainly has something to Resist and B) the Resistance is actually in-the-right.


The SSPX really can't argue themselves out of this one. The best I heard was something along these lines (pretty ridiculous, I'll admit):

But the +Lefebvre consecrations were done out of necessity. No such necessity exists today, since the SSPX already has 3 bishops for Tradition. If you need Traditional bishops today, you just have to be on good terms with the SSPX -- work with and through us -- and you'll be all set. In other words: we got "first dibs" on the state of necessity. Sucks to be second place, huh? Tough luck, pal.

The SSPX also has no good argument about how the +Faure Consecration in 2015 was in any way different, fundamentally, from +Lefebvre's 1988 Consecrations.

What, we didn't have enough trumpets during the recessional? We didn't cross the 2,000 mark in attendance by the Faithful?

.

The SSPX also has no good argument about how the +Faure Consecration in 2015 was in any way different, fundamentally, from +Lefebvre's 1988 Consecrations.

.
How about this one:  The 1988 consecrations occurred after Vat.II and the Newmass, when the TLM was under attack from Newrome. But the +Faure Consecration in 2015 occurred after the AFD of 2012, which came from +Fellay, not from Newrome.

.

Curiously, this Menzingen letter attempts to imitate Ecclesia dei afflicta in two respects:
1 -- It is dated the same day as Faure's Consecration, whereas Ecclesia dei was dated the day after the Consecration of the 4.
.
The Menzingen letter seems to be all tied up in regrettable restraints, that is, restraints it regrets being subject to, since +Fellay has no jurisdiction, and therefore, he was unable to proclaim excommunication of +W and +Faure even though he may well have wanted to. I suspect he toyed with the idea of pronouncing latae sententiae excommunication, since that inherently means it occurs as a direct consequence of the action itself, even if no official judgment of the competent authority announces it; but then he would have deferred from that plan because it would have caused him relations difficulties with Newrome for having presumed to embezzle one of the powers reserved to the Holy See!
.
Could it be that he issued his letter of complaint the same day as the new Consecration in order to upstage any reaction from Newrome? (Recall that EDA came out the day AFTER the 1988 consecrations.) Or, was it rather hastily published because +F just couldn't wait any longer, as he had been eagerly waiting for the chance to do this? It makes him appear to have a great desire to act as a pope, as if he covets the power that the pope has, and is trying to do whatever he can to approximate the power of a pope.
.
The irony is, ABL strove to keep his Society from having the appearance of a parallel Church, but here is +Fellay, not hesitating to act as if he craves to have papal authority -- thus giving the impression of a parallel Church!
.
+F's letter does say that this new Consecration "is not at all comparable to the consecrations of 1988," but it only gives one reason to back up that claim:
.

"All the declarations of Bishop Williamson and Fr. Faure prove abundantly that they no longer recognize the Roman authorities, except in a purely rhetorical manner."

.
So it attempts to reduce Menzingen's opposition to this new Consecration to the same issue of contention they had against +W and Fr. Faure -- which they say is the reason they were "no longer members of the SSPX since 2012 and 2014 respectively," namely, +F had EXPELLED THEM because of their so-called refusal to recognize the Roman authorities (in the latter case it was literally "because of their violent criticisms of any relations with the Roman authorities" -- apparently meaning +Fellay wanted to pursue "relations" and +W and Fr. Faure did not support him, therefore their Resistance was "violent").
.
Again, ironically, +Fellay presumes to act like a little pope by daring to punish clerics under him (but over whom he exercises no ordinary jurisdiction!) who act without his permission -- or, should we say, "mandate?"
.
In the end, this letter is a very weak attempt to show that the 1988 Consecrations and this new one of +Faure, have nothing in common. When it is quite obvious to anyone with the faculty of thinking, that they are very much alike.
.
+Fellay attempts to reduce the objective of ABL to that of making sacraments available to the faithful, thereby ignoring the obvious and more long-term objective, namely, the perpetuation of the Catholic Faith far into the future, which of course INCLUDES making sacraments available. In other words, +Fellay ignores the LARGER SCOPE GOAL of ABL and misrepresents his intentions as if he had only wanted one small piece of that larger scope objective, as if it were "His sole goal ... to make available to the faithful the sacraments..." Notice too, he does not say, valid sacraments. Obviously, that would imply that some (or all?) sacraments of Newrome could be invalid. Which would most likely put him in hot water for negotiations with Newrome. Can't have that!! Must keep up that FSSP appearance at all times!

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. His sole goal was to make available to the faithful the sacraments which priests ordained by the bishops would offer.

.
Again, irony arises! If ABL's "sole goal" was supplying the faithful with sacraments, then +Williamson's goal is GREATER than ABL's! Because +W hopes to provide valid sacraments FAR INTO THE FUTURE, whereas, according to +F, ABL was only looking into the very near future, IOW +F makes ABL seem to be rather myopic in comparison to the long-term vision of his true successor.
.

.
Question: What did ABL receive?
Answer:  ABL received two things, first, he received the Catholic Faith without which no one at all is saved (cf. Pope Innocent III, ex cathedra, Lateran IV, A.D. 1215; Athanasian Creed), and second, he received the fullness of the sacrament of Orders.
.
Question: Therefore, what did ABL hand down?
Answer:  ABL handed down the Catholic Faith, and he also handed down episcopal consecration to 4 successor bishops: Bishop Richard Williamson, Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallarais, Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, and Bishop Bernard Fellay, in whom the prophesy "the last shall be first" seems to loom large, at least so far.
.
Question: Who among those 4 successors can now say they have followed in the path, set before them, of the Archbishop?
Answer:  We can now say that only Bishop Richard Williamson has followed in the path of ABL, because only +W has both handed down the Catholic Faith which he received, as well as handed down the episcopal consecration that he also received.
.
Question: Is there any reason to expect that any of the other 3 SSPX bishops will rise to this status in the future?
Answer: No, there is no such reason to expect any of the other 3 SSPX bishops would achieve this status so as to be able to make this claim, i.e., TRADIDI QUOD ET ACCEPI, because not only have they not consecrated any successor bishop(s), but by their words and actions it has become clear that they have no intention of ever consecrating any new bishops in the future, since they are 100% on board with the Newrome agenda of being controlled by Newrome, and it is most manifestly Newrome's goal to eliminate the line of traditional bishops in the world in anticipation of and furtherance for the One World Religion of Antichrist, against which +W and his successors therefore stand alone on planet earth (which is not "flat" BTW).

Poor Mr. McFarland will not have peace until +Fellay completes his betrayal. He expected this to happen by his son's ordination (2012) and he's still waiting.