Author Topic: SSPX consecrations announced (Read 7496 times)

FarmerWife · « **Reply #105 on:** **Yesterday** at 04:13:56 PM »

Quote from: Giovanni Berto on February 07, 2026, 07:47:04 PM

The faster a chapel grows, the worse it will be in terms of how much of a "Trad" the faithful are in general. Even though the Francis era made "Trads" grow, it seems that even by accident he promoted his evil, since the faithful in most places of Traddielad are pretty watered down now, with so much new people who know little about the movement and are not necessarily disposed to learn.

I've experienced a rural chapel that was hostile towards newcomers and only favoured their own families. I heard that many families had to leave because of how toxic the environment was there (mostly by the women who give off feminist vibes). And they are struggling with getting enough donations to build a bigger church. It's a double-edged sword.

Geremia · « **Reply #106 on:** **Yesterday** at 04:17:18 PM »

https://youtu.be/watch?v=I71iLTcAmaI

OABrownson1876 · « **Reply #107 on:** **Yesterday** at 04:21:42 PM »

I left St. Thomas in '97 after my year of Metaphysics. The class behind me was good-sized (would have been the ordination class of 2001), Frs. Denis and Steven McDonald, Fr. Trevor Burfitt, and cannot remember some of the other names. I liked those guys when I was in seminary. I was fire-breathing "Extra Ecclesiam" and the "New Mass is mortal sin, objectively evil," so maybe some of those guys just did not engage me in conversation because I was seen as a radical. I know Fr. Burfitt took a stand against the Plandemic Vax, so good for him. But I would imagine that those priests are "bishop material." At the end of the day, we do not need as a bishop some guy who is multi-lingual, advanced degree, blah, blah, blah, ad naseam. The purpose of the traditional bishop today is, or ought to be, preaching the One True Church (fighting the errors of ecuмenism) and dissuading NO Catholics from the New Mass and all of its associated errors. He ought to be a good judge of character, "Should I ordain or consecrate this guy?" And besides, if he knows Latin well enough, he should have some facility with Spanish, French, Italian, the Romance languages.

The days of Duns Scotus, the days of minor seminaries are long past us. Duns Scotus, when he defended the Immaculate Conception at the University of Paris, in the year 1307, was 41 years old, and he argued against 30 theologians, defeating them in reverse order after listening to them all. Duns Scotus is not walking through those SSPX doors, we all know that. But Blessed Duns Scotus was a man among boys. Most of these SSPX priests are lucky to start learning Latin in their late teens. Fr. Wathen entered minor seminary at age 13, but he was ordained in '58, and that was a different age. This is 2026 - Operation Catholic Survival.

AnthonyPadua · « **Reply #108 on:** **Yesterday** at 05:31:02 PM »

Quote from: FarmerWife on Yesterday at 04:13:56 PM

I've experienced a rural chapel that was hostile towards newcomers and only favoured their own families. I heard that many families had to leave because of how toxic the environment was there (mostly by the women who give off feminist vibes). And they are struggling with getting enough donations to build a bigger church. It's a double-edged sword.

Was it older unmarried women?

My SSPX priest also gave a sermon on the consecrations saying how it's necessary for the salvation of souls and it's not schism. Although he did mention the 2012 agreement and something about not comprising but in my opinion the SSPX did compromise in 2012.

So we will see what happens.

AnthonyPadua · « **Reply #109 on:** **Yesterday** at 05:33:41 PM »

Quote from: OABrownson1876 on Yesterday at 04:21:42 PM

The days of Duns Scotus, the days of minor seminaries are long past us. Duns Scotus, when he defended the Immaculate Conception at the University of Paris, in the year 1307, was 41 years old, and he argued against 30 theologians, defeating them in reverse order after listening to them all.

Too bad most won't listen if it was argued that EENS means no exceptions. Hopefully the clergy eventually wake up to this modernist heresy that there are exceptions to EENS.

FarmerWife · « **Reply #110 on:** **Yesterday** at 08:40:43 PM »

Quote from: AnthonyPadua on Yesterday at 05:31:02 PM

Was it older unmarried women?

My SSPX priest also gave a sermon on the consecrations saying how it's necessary for the salvation of souls and it's not schism. Although he did mention the 2012 agreement and something about not comprising but in my opinion the SSPX did compromise in 2012.

So we will see what happen

Married women with children I believe and maybe some older ones. They acted like they were better than everyone because I suspect the made the chapel into what it was. They were the original families that started the mission.

Seraphina · « **Reply #111 on:** **Yesterday** at 09:39:18 PM »

Quote from: FarmerWife on Yesterday at 08:40:43 PM

Married women with children I believe and maybe some older ones. They acted like they were better than everyone because I suspect the made the chapel into what it was. They were the original families that started the mission.

I had the same experience. In my case it was middle aged married women, older women, and the entire chapel. The middle aged seemed afraid I was there to steal their husbands, the older women who basically hen-pecked the priest and ran both the chapel and their husbands. They also founded and financed the chapel, so believed themselves entitled to lord it over others. The chapel as a whole viewed me with suspicion because my background was very different from theirs. From NYC, “still” single in my 40’s, had college degrees, so I must be an infiltrator, a feminist, there to corrupt the children. They also assumed I must be wealthy and therefore stingy as I failed to make any large donations. The fact that I was well acquainted with a particular sedevacantist priest also offended a few of the older folks.
So, I just went for Mass and the Sacraments during the two weeks I passed through in the summer. If others aren’t friendly, well, let them be. If the priest had a problem with me, I never knew it. He wasn’t really the type who enjoyed socializing after Mass with his flock. If he shared his parishioners’ suspicions, I’m sure he would have had to interview me or denied me the Sacraments. Some people just aren’t interested in those outside their already established social circles, and there’s no way you are going to change them. No use in getting bent out of joint about it.

FarmerWife · « **Reply #112 on:** **Yesterday** at 10:15:06 PM »

Quote from: Seraphina on Yesterday at 09:39:18 PM

I had the same experience. In my case it was middle aged married women, older women, and the entire chapel. The middle aged seemed afraid I was there to steal their husbands, the older women who basically hen-pecked the priest and ran both the chapel and their husbands. They also founded and financed the chapel, so believed themselves entitled to lord it over others. The chapel as a whole viewed me with suspicion because my background was very different from theirs. From NYC, “still” single in my 40’s, had college degrees, so I must be an infiltrator, a feminist, there to corrupt the children. They also assumed I must be wealthy and therefore stingy as I failed to make any large donations. The fact that I was well acquainted with a particular sedevacantist priest also offended a few of the older folks.
So, I just went for Mass and the Sacraments during the two weeks I passed through in the summer. If others aren’t friendly, well, let them be. If the priest had a problem with me, I never knew it. He wasn’t really the type who enjoyed socializing after Mass with his flock. If he shared his parishioners’ suspicions, I’m sure he would have had to interview me or denied me the Sacraments. Some people just aren’t interested in those outside their already established social circles, and there’s no way you are going to change them. No use in getting bent out of joint about it.

One time, I was talking to a woman's husband and she never came around to talk to me. I tried talking to her but she would avoid me and talk to someone else. I would get along with the newcomers (women and men) and the men of the chapel. But the women who were there forever seemed to be in their own groups (cliques). They also "run" the chapel in that they do all of the fundraising, chores, finances, etc. Sure, they have large families and seem devout but their actions says they wear the pants. Also, there was a time all the toilets were clogged because of the women/girls were putting paper towels/female hygeine products down the toilet.

Yes, they would fund the chapel however, they were so desperate that they were buying lottery tickets lol. And I thought, maybe if they weren't so closed off and cliquey, that they would get more donations and grow the mission.

I like rural living, for the peace and quiet, but the problem is that people in general are closed off and suspicious of newcomers yet their small towns are dying and lack innovation. I prefer city chapels in that people are forced to get out of their bubbles.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #113 on:** **Today** at 06:15:15 AM »

Quote from: Against the Heresies on February 04, 2026, 12:33:10 PM

The point of comparison for the consecrations by Bishop Williamson should not be 1988, but 1991.
That was when the long-forgotten consecration of Bishop Rangel (Campos) by the SSPX took place.
It is impossible for the SSPX to justify the 1991 consecration and simultaneously criticize the consecrations by Msgr. Williamson. This is probably also the reason why it is never mentioned.

This is the real take in context of SSPX consecrations without a papal mandate. You must look to all and consider. No excommunication was issued when Bishops Fellay and Williamson consecrated Bishop Rangel, who later struck an accord with Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos of the Ecclesia Dei commissio granting the consecration by the same of Bishop Rifan, who led Campos towards the Novus Ordo liturgical abuses with co-ritual and co-consecrations.

SoldierofCtK · « **Reply #114 on:** **Today** at 07:28:17 PM »

I had someone ask for arguments from canon law as to how the SSPX can consecrate bishops without a papal mandate, to combat criticisms from their NO family members.

Since they recognize the 1983 CIC, an internal critique actually lays out a safe path. From a Gemini summary:
The 1983 Code of Canon Law (1983 CIC) continues to govern acts carrying automatic excommunication, including schism and, by extension, invalid or illegal episcopal consecrations (Canon 1364:1). In the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the exceptions to the automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication for consecrating a bishop without a mandate are found in Canon 1323 and Canon 1324. Canon 1323, 4° reintroduces the exemptions for necessity (even when unrecognized by the hierarchy), fear, and ignorance of the law.

In the 1917 CIC there is no automatic excommunication for the consecrations, however I just learned of the 1958 encyclical AD APOSTOLORUM PRINCIPIS that removes "exemptions" based on fear or the state of necessity/epikeia. From a sede point of view, I think they can argue for the allowance of consecrations in periods of an interregnum, but how would an R&R who rejects the 1983 CIC argue for the actions of the SSPX in 1991 or Resistance in the mid 2010's, more specifically?

I've read an argument that the divine law of church unity under the pope supercedes the law of epikeia. (Again, under the R&R paradigm.) Thank you for any help with this.

SoldierofCtK · « **Reply #115 on:** **Today** at 07:49:07 PM »

Just an edit, 1983 Canon 1387 explicitly mentions consecrating bishops

Author Topic: SSPX consecrations announced (Read 7496 times)

FarmerWife

Re: SSPX consecrations announced

Geremia

Re: SSPX consecrations announced

OABrownson1876

Re: SSPX consecrations announced

AnthonyPadua

Re: SSPX consecrations announced

AnthonyPadua

Re: SSPX consecrations announced

FarmerWife

Re: SSPX consecrations announced

Seraphina

Re: SSPX consecrations announced

FarmerWife

Re: SSPX consecrations announced

Centroamerica

Re: SSPX consecrations announced

SoldierofCtK

Re: SSPX consecrations announced

SoldierofCtK

Re: SSPX consecrations announced