CathInfo.com

I know things should not always be rushed, but I feel like I wish the SSPX would simply do the consecrations already and get it done and over with. There is too much deliberation and "prudence." That is actually effeminate. I have been guilty pf it myself. As even in the secular world, they say to make a decision and learn from the consequences. We can't be waiting all decade if supposedly the SSPX still claims to be faithful to "Operation Survival." It's getting ridiculous. Lack of common sense and direct action except, like the Vatican, if it hurts their fantasy world and coffers. 

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.

ByzCat3000,
You left this quote out of my reply:  

https://sspx.org/en/news/no-comparison-1988-faures-consecration-5676

The Society of St. Pius X denounces this episcopal consecration of Fr. Faure, which, despite the assertions of both clerics concerned, is not at all comparable to the consecrations of 1988. 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."

For ABL in 1988, the JPII Prayer Meeting at Assisi was the proximate motivation for consecrating the 4 bishops and the state of necessity was undeniable. When +Williamson consecrated +Faure, it was clear that the SSPX was determined to be “regularized” by Rome. Shortly after, the SSPX was Regularized in Argentina which according to the Legal analysis from the Argentinean lawyer hired by Adelante La Fe/ Rorate Caeli, entails worldwide recognition which could only happen with the signature of the leadership, not to mention the signing of the “doctrinal Preamble” (the “Profession of Faith” & “Oath of Fidelity to the Pope”) that was always absolutely non-negotiable.

The state of necessity existed during Francis/Bergoglio and even more than 1988 but +Fellay became a member of the Roman Rota  (according to Mr. James Bogle, previous head of Una Voce Int.) and conveniently has the authority to judge the SSPX priests and keep quiet  the crimes that would otherwise be exposed.

If the SSPX had any principles, they would have continued as they were and consecrate more bishops as needed. Even today, they should not be flirting with the idea but simply DO IT as +Williamson did, giving the Church 6 additional Bishops including +Faure. In fact, if anything else, they should recognize the “Resistant” bishops because (in your opinion) after all, the SSPX leadership “denounced” +Williamson and +Faure because they still had “Three bishops who were significantly younger” in 2015.

In my opinion, and I hope I’m wrong, they will not do more Episcopal Consecrations because when all the “indult” Masses are gone, the Prelature will be established to corral all the conservatives into it as a controlled opposition and bring them back to the Novus Ordo “reform of the reform” Mass which +Fellay witnessed in an Abbey near Florence in 2012 and was quoted by Cardinal Canizares as saying that “If ABL had seen the Mass as is celebrated in the Abbey near Florence, he would not have taken the step he did”. So, why would +Fellay, still an advisor to the leadership want to take the step that ABL did by consecrating the 4 bishops?

The new leadership was ratified by Francis, who was not better than Leo and the bishop(s) they get, will also be ratified by Rome. They should not weigh the pros and cons but act decisively.

The possible SSPX/newChurch discord that perks my interest is that pope Bob might be unexpectedly changing their pre-established ecuмenical relations script.

The quid pro quo under the Bergolio regime was: He didn't bother the SSPX and they in-turn, were mum about his papal circus.

It was as if they were at peace.

But now, the SSPX is getting anxious and they are begining to "message" their faithful that Bob somehow, isn't upholding his end of the deal?

I understand. However, the SSPX members who know better, should see this as a blessing in disguise. No good could come from a deal with Rome specially with a Prelature which would be compromised. If the leadership doesn't take decisive action soon, they could join one of the "Resistance" bishops and work with them.Just a thought.