I came across this article today:
https://infovaticana.com/en/2026/01/08/the-fsspx-does-not-rule-out-new-episcopal-consecrations-even-without-a-pontifical-mandate/
But when +Williamson consecrated +Faure, they said this:
Are the SSPX members putting pressure on the leadership? Or is the SSPX trying to put pressure on the Vatican? If they are serious about considering consecrating bishops without a pontifical mandate, they should apologize to the "resistance" and all the bishops consecrated by + Williamson. But they won't consecrate because they would loose all the conservatives they have gained from their compromise.
I think its internally consistent even though its a different principle than you hold to.
SSPX Resistance believes there's *Technically* a Pope but for all practical intents and purposes there is not a pope. In other words, no papal approval is needed for things like consecrations... ever
Mainstream SSPX Is more like Lefebvre in 1980 or so. Mainstream SSPX believes consecrations without papal approval are justified *only* as a last resort. Only if they would be left without any bishops otherwise. So when SSPX already had three bishops who were significantly younger, they thought Williamson doing consecrations was unnecessary, but in 2025 with Bishop Tissier and Williamson dead, there might be more of an absolute necessity to consecrate bishops.
I don't see this position as inherently more absurd than anything else. I think *all* of you have serious problems with Vatican I, but I'm not gonna hijack the forum arguing that point.
Topic: SSPX hinting they will "Consecrate" (Read 33489 times)