CathInfo.com

But think about it, seriously. How flawed is the "First Dibs" or "Winner Take All" argument.

Why would the first bishops to be consecrated without a Papal Mandate be granted some kind of exclusive license to that position? Why would OTHER GROUPS have to come to THEM for Trad bishops -- rather than vice-versa?  What makes that "first across the Finish Line" so fundamentally special?

It would imply that God, or the Church, awards some kind of bonus jurisdiction or authority -- outside the usual channels (i.e., from the Pope) -- to the first "not in Communion with the Conciliar Church" who consecrates bishops for Tradition.

Think about it. Who would suggest Bp. Fellay is any more "legitimate" than Bp. Zendejas? Did either one of them receive an explicit Papal Mandate from the reigning Pontiff? If not, then they are on equal footing. That is the *only* way to look at it.

The situation at the time of Consecration was virtually the same. If anything, the Conciliar Church is in worse shape now, with an even worse prognosis for the future, compared to 1988. There were other existing Traditional bishops in 1988 when +Fellay was consecrated, too. They are called SEDEVACANTISTS and INDEPENDENT BISHOPS. The Nine (who left the SSPX in 1983) have had a couple of bishops from among their number for some time. When was Bp. Sanborn consecrated?

I believe the following question was brought up at some point here on CathInfo so pardon us, o pardon us...

If the neoSSPX HAS to rely at least in terms of permission from Conciliaroma for new consecrations, how can the neoSSPX ever be a force for Tradition?
(Which considering they have already fallen anyway, are they really a steward for Tradition anymore? Based on all the compromises, I do not believe they are.) 

Once you get Nervous Ordite “bishops” into the mix, with respect to consecrating, how does that NOT kill the neoSSPX?

Perhaps the neoSSPX has not been completely over come by the waves, but her bow is definitely under water, and her stern is bottoms up.