Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: SSPX hinting they will "Consecrate"  (Read 33457 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: SSPX hinting they will "Consecrate"
« Reply #25 on: January 18, 2026, 08:27:05 AM »


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.
When I hit the quote button it doesn't automatically include quotes within the quote.  I was not intentionally excluding it.

You may be right that SSPX won't do new consecrations, and yeah, if they let themselves run out of bishops that would be a clear change from what ABL did.  ABL also went back and forth on things a few times.

I'm just saying that I think "You can do consecrations without papal approval, but only if the alternative is being left without any Traditional Bishops" is a plausible, not internally inconsistent position.  I'm not even arguing for its correctness.

Offline Maria Auxiliadora

  • Supporter
Re: SSPX hinting they will "Consecrate"
« Reply #26 on: January 18, 2026, 03:42:46 PM »
They will not do it anyway. They are far too compromised. They found their nich in the conciliar church and don't believe in the literal meaning of dogma which is the only weapon against heretical authority.
They cannot defend the faith.


Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: SSPX hinting they will "Consecrate"
« Reply #27 on: February 02, 2026, 12:19:54 PM »
BUMP

Re: SSPX hinting they will "Consecrate"
« Reply #28 on: February 02, 2026, 01:00:42 PM »
H. E. Carlo María Viganó:

The decision of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X to consecrate new Bishops on July 1 demonstrates the impossibility of any dialogue with the Holy See.

The Vatican’s refusal to comply with the Society’s requests confirms a double standard:

On the one hand, synodality opens the way to schism without this constituting a problem either for those who impose it from above or for those who suffer it from below.

On the other hand, a Priestly Fraternity of assured orthodoxy is denied permission to consecrate new Bishops precisely because it has not compromised with the conciliar revolution, the highest expression of which is synodality.

When the Hierarchy becomes complicit in the demolition of the Church, the only solution is to appeal to the state of necessity and guarantee that Apostolic Succession continues for the good of souls. Nothing has changed since 1988, and we can even say that the situation has dramatically worsened.

I therefore express my full support for the decision taken by the Society of Saint Pius X.