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.

Was the consecration of Bishop Rangel (RIP) in 1991 a "last resort"?

Quote from: Infirmus 1/16/2026, 5:42:55 AM
"... Those who think that there are talks with Rome are nowhere near understanding what is going on..."

• How many bishops will be consecrated?
• When will these consecrations take place?..."

Just a month ago we witnessed a grand 50 th Anniversary for Fr. Schmidberger, complete with Novus Ordo bishop blessing a chasuble, and a framed congratulations signed Statement from Our Holy Father Pope Leo XIV,  delicious banquet, but no cigars.  + Fellay had a huge smile. So really, there has to be some communication between neo-SSPX and neo-Rome, just for the logistics of organizing the big gala, invitations, announcements, press coverage...it was a remarkable day. We can presume "THEY" are discussing  the 'new bishops" wheeling and dealing ...So who's playing games here? They are bent on this "Recognition" by Rome since 2012, and that is sadly their attitude  'hodie'.



Anyway, here is a very short note from the Africa District, Dec. 2025 AD.:


https://fsspx.africa/en/news/nova-et-vetera-december-2025-55983
Excerpt:
"...Marcel Lefebvre emerged as the defender of the faith against the Church’s self‑destruction. This long history—marked by the utter disregard for canon law on the part of those who condemned the Archbishop—has been recounted by numerous learned authors...
The 1988 Consecrations
...The survival of the SSPX was ensured in 1988 when Archbishop Lefebvre decided to consecrate four new bishops for the Society. This “survival operation,” as he himself called it, was sanctioned by a so‑called excommunication, pronounced in John Paul II’s letter Ecclesia Dei Adflicta.

Has the Situation Changed?
The recent Mater Populi Fidelis “note” concerning the Virgin Mary—among many other publications and decisions—proves that present‑day Rome continues to pursue its “modernist and neoliberal” policies. This reality justifies, if need be, the Society’s consecration of new bishops who will perform priestly ordinations for future generations.

Questions That Remain

• How many bishops will be consecrated?
• When will these consecrations take place?..."

********************

Pope St. Marcel I, Pray for us!

Photo of St. Marcellus: https://www.vaticanstate.va/en/state-and-government/general-informations/saint-of-the-day/3451-january-16-saint-marcellus-i-pope.html

ByzCat3000,
You left this quote out of my reply: 


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.