Anyone in the "Bishop Fellay hasn't done anything" or "there wasn't an agreement yet" camp needs to open their eyes.

The SSPX had a choice to make: how would they react to this consecration? To quote the knight in "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark",

"You have chosen... poorly."

Here you have the SSPX condemning a "Traditional Survival"-motivated consecration! An event that is IN EVERY POSSIBLE WAY IDENTICAL with the "Operation Survival" consecrations back in 1988.

Anyone actually interested in learning the truth of the matter should pay attention to how the SSPX views this recent consecration. How do they distinguish themselves?

Because however they distinguish themselves from this consecration is exactly how they are distinguishing themselves from +ABL's old SSPX.

My argument goes like this:

The +Faure consecration and the 1988 consecrations are essentially the same.
But the SSPX condemns the +Faure consecration.
Therefore the SSPX condemns the 1988 consecrations as well.

But the 1988 consecrations are an essential element of the traditional resistance (to Modernism) of the Society of St. Pius X.
Therefore the SSPX has changed in some way.

If you look at the ESSENTIALS of both consecrations, you can see the proof and evidence that they are both the same.

Even Rome admits this! Of course the Romans say they were both bad, but at least they have the common sense and grasp on reality to admit that there is no fundamental difference between them!

Spot on!  It does appear that Bishop Fellay is still struggling to eliminate or marginalize Bishop Williamson's challenge to his authority and imperial position.

He could never bear being an equal with Bishop Williamson because in the natural order of things, and with the two being equal, Bishop Williamson's authority outshines Bishop Fellay, as Bishop Williamson always had the superior moral and spiritual authority, as contrasted with a purely canonical holding of power by the Superior General.

First of all, I'm happy to see the consecration of Bishop Faure, I hope for a long and successful episcopacy - every Traditional Catholic bishop is extremely important in these difficult times.

However, I have a question - I could not find any information regarding events before consecration (as Bishop Williamson himself admits, they were not keen on revealing it beforehand). Did Bishop Williamson make any attempt to do the consecration with permission of the Holy See? It seems highly unlikely giving his rhetoric and keeping the consecration plans a secret for a long time. In that case, there is a difference between Bishop Faure's consecration and the 1988 consecrations - Archbishop Lefebvre did almost everything that was humanly possible to consecrate the bishops with permission of the Holy See, unlike Bishop Williamson who acted like a sedevacantist, totally disregarding and ignoring Rome (unless there was some attempt to obtain permission for Bishop Faure's consecration that I'm not aware of - hence my question).

I think this illustrates problems with R&R position. Everyone bashes +Fellay for attempts to do deal with Rome. Now let me make it clear, I'm also opposed to any deal unless Rome converts and I'm not happy with this new course of SSPX and I greatly fear about what might happen after the reconciliation. However, if Novus Ordo hierarchy is legitimate (both +Fellay and +Williamson recognize Francis as Sovereign Pontiff), holds formal jurisdiction in the Catholic Church and if the Magisterium of the Catholic Church can still be found in Novus Ordo, who can blame +Fellay for his direction towards reconciliation? After all, the Catholic Church and its Magisterium cannot lead the faithful into error threatening their souls, which is essentially what R&R's are asserting by recognizing V2 claimants as Popes. As Ladislaus said on another thread, if you consider Novus Ordo hierarchy as legitimate, there is no choice but to submit and accept whole of Vatican II, NOM and canonizations of John Paul II and John XXIII. SSPX is right on the point that +Williamson's recognition of the Roman authorities is purely a lip-service. On practical level there is no difference between Resistance and sedevacantists (well, perhaps except a picture of Francis hanging on a wall).

Another matter is what +Fellay is going to do when he will need to consecrate new bishops for the SSPX (lets suppose it happens before any reconciliation). If he is consistent he should seek permission from Rome. If he does not get it, what is he going to do?

Now, please don't get me wrong - I do not write this to criticize Bishop Williamson, I'm also worried about SSPX new course and I don't want reconciliation untill Rome returns to Catholicism, and I highly appreciate Resistance efforts - if I had access to Resistance chapel I would happily attend the Masses and approach the sacraments there. But the classic R&R position is simply inconsistent, and the difference between +Williamson and +Fellay illustrates it perfectly. Myself being in camp of sede-doubtism, I do not really see a position in this crisis which would be 100% consistent and free from problems - this is how difficult are the times we are living in.

The issue is whether at both times, the consecrating Bishop believed that he was acting in accordance with the mind and will of the Church in order to fulfill the great command. It is, and was, the same motivation and judgement in both cases.
Those who deny this, are being dishonest.
The introduction of the term sedevacantist is inflammatory and inapplicable to this action, and it only serves to distract and cloud the truth of the matter.

I agree.

This has nothing to do with Sedevacantism.

+ABL and +Williamson were both "R&R" at the time of the 1988 and 2015 consecrations, respectively.

So any discussion of Sedevacantism vs. R&R is a distraction from the discussion at hand.

If you must have a good Sede discussion on this fine Sunday morning, please start a thread in the Crisis subforum.

My previous post had very little to do with sedevacantism, but looks like you have focused on the comparison I used. My main point is that I don't see how consistent R&R can possibly argue against Bishop Fellay - he wants to submit to Francis whom even Williamson recognizes as Sovereign Pontiff.

Quote

However, I have a question - I could not find any information regarding events before consecration (as Bishop Williamson himself admits, they were not keen on revealing it beforehand). Did Bishop Williamson make any attempt to do the consecration with permission of the Holy See? It seems highly unlikely giving his rhetoric and keeping the consecration plans a secret for a long time. In that case, there is a difference between Bishop Faure's consecration and the 1988 consecrations - Archbishop Lefebvre did almost everything that was humanly possible to consecrate the bishops with permission of the Holy See, unlike Bishop Williamson who acted like a sedevacantist, totally disregarding and ignoring Rome (unless there was some attempt to obtain permission for Bishop Faure's consecration that I'm not aware of - hence my question).

Notwithstanding that a papal mandate was not requested this time, the reason that the Archbishop went ahead without it, was that he arrived at the obvious conclusion that such a mandate would not be given. Things now are much more certain that it would not be given today.
So essentially, with the underlying reasons given relating to the ongoing revolutionary crisis, the justification is precisely the same as that of 1988.

Wait a minute - what does it mean "he arrived at the obvious conclusion that such a mandate would not be given"? So private judgment of Bishop Williamson which tells him that he will probably not get a permission is a justification for totally ignoring the Pope and consecrating the bishop without even trying to obtain the papal mandate? How is that not disobediance? Acting in state of necessity does not dispense from obedience to the Roman Pontiff where it is possible (in that case it would be attempt to obtain papal permission, using all appropriate means to receive it, and perhaps performing consecration after being refused). As I said, Archbishop Lefebvre did everything that was humanly possible to perform the consecrations without disobediance to the Pope, while Bishop Williamson did not bother to make any effort towards obtaining the mandate from the man he claims to recognize as Pope.

The R&R position is indeed contradictory and unsound, but, that is not the issue here. The issue is whether at both times, the consecrating Bishop believed that he was acting in accordance with the mind and will of the Church in order to fulfill the great command. It is, and was, the same motivation and judgement in both cases.
Those who deny this, are being dishonest.
The introduction of the term sedevacantist is inflammatory and inapplicable to this action, and it only serves to distract and cloud the truth of the matter.

OK, since you focused on my comparison of +Williamson's action to sedevacantism - let's say that +Pivarunas or +Sanborn decide to consecrate new bishops tomorrow. Of course they will not even contact the Roman hierarchy (understandable considering their position) and they will also claim that they act in accordance with mind and will of the Church. I fail to see the difference between this and bishop Williamson's consecration - in both cases the Roman authorities are totally ignored. The only difference is that +Williamson claims to recognize Francis as Pope (which is not followed by any actions and is purely a lip-service as SSPX correctly pointed out in their official statement). But as I said, sedevacantism is not my focus.

I agree.

This has nothing to do with Sedevacantism.

+ABL and +Williamson were both "R&R" at the time of the 1988 and 2015 consecrations, respectively.

So any discussion of Sedevacantism vs. R&R is a distraction from the discussion at hand.

If you must have a good Sede discussion on this fine Sunday morning, please start a thread in the Crisis subforum.

As I already pointed out, sedevacantism was by no means the main focus of my previous post (as sede-doubtist I oppose sedevacantism - especially dogmatic sedevacantism - myself). Rather, I pointed out that it perfectly illustrates the problem with classic R&R position. A consistent R&R cannot:

1. Blame +Fellay for his course towards reconciliation. After all, he only wants to submit to the Roman Pontiff and legitimate hierarchy of the Catholic Church - who can blame him for that?
2. Justify +Williamson's complete disregard of Francis (lack of any attempt to perform the consecration with permission of  the Holy See - state of necessity does not justify lack of any effort to obtain such permission) whom he recognizes as the true Pontiff.

If you reply to point number 1 by saying about conciliar revolution and danger to faith coming from reconciliation with Novus Ordo and acceptance of Vatican II, you assert that the Magisterium has defected and is teaching error which results in loss of faith in millions of souls. That is impossibile for the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which makes R&R position untenable.

But let me emphasize it again, as sede-doubtist myself I don't criticize Bishop Williamson and I'm happy he performed the consecration (I hope its not the last one, since +Faure's age indeed causes fears about future of the Resistance), but in my opinion it demonstrates (together with criticism of Bishop Fellay) how absurd R&R is.

Quote from: Arvinger

But the classic R&R position is simply inconsistent, and the difference between +Williamson and +Fellay illustrates it perfectly.

Is not the difference between +Williamson and +Fellay nothing more than the difference between the classic SSPX and the FSSP? When the SSPX makes a deal, their operating position within the Church might be slightly different, but they'd be priests who wish to remain traditional operating under Roman authority, which is exactly the FSSP.

Not exactly, as FSSP officially accepts whole of Vatican II, the New Mass and the new sacraments, which SSPX (to some extent even now, with a new course under +Fellay) opposes. To make such a statement as you did we'd have to know the details of possible deal between SSPX and Rome (honestly, I doubt the deal can be made without full acceptance of Vatican II by SSPX - under Benedict XVI it seemed possible for SSPX to reconcile without having to embrace all of Vatican II, but these circuмstances are long gone).

Matthew,

Let's face it -- every priest of every Traditional group (even independent priests) wants to be part of the Catholic Church. I don't know of any groups or Traditional priests that claim to be of another church.

That is so true.

This situation reminds me of a quote from Father Francis LeBlanc RIP.
Albeit he was referring to the Mass, it seems appropriate.

"If you were right then
We are right now.
If we are wrong now,
You were wrong then.

.

Archbishop Lefebvre did almost everything that was humanly possible to consecrate the bishops with permission of the Holy See, unlike Bishop Williamson who acted like a sedevacantist, totally disregarding and ignoring Rome (unless there was some attempt to obtain permission for Bishop Faure's consecration that I'm not aware of - hence my question).

Quote from: J.Paul

The issue is whether at both times, the consecrating Bishop believed that he was acting in accordance with the mind and will of the Church in order to fulfill the great command. It is, and was, the same motivation and judgement in both cases.
Those who deny this, are being dishonest.
The introduction of the term sedevacantist is inflammatory and inapplicable to this action, and it only serves to distract and cloud the truth of the matter.

I agree.

This has nothing to do with Sedevacantism.

+ABL and +Williamson were both "R&R" at the time of the 1988 and 2015 consecrations, respectively.

So any discussion of Sedevacantism vs. R&R is a distraction from the discussion at hand.

If you must have a good Sede discussion on this fine Sunday morning, please start a thread in the Crisis subforum.

That fine Sunday morning was 10 months ago.  We now have a grand total of 3 pages in this "discussion."

Regarding the decision of +W to make this Episcopal Consecration, it seems to me that it was not an easy decision for him to make.  We are no longer in the same situation that ABL was in at his time, and it would have been something of a lost cause for +W to appeal to Rome for permission to consecrate a bishop.  It would have been more like poking a hornet's nest with a stick.

ABL endured no small amount of anxiety over his decision, too, and so, +W and ABL share a lot of kinship in this.  Additionally, it seems now rather impossible that +Fellay, +de Mallerais or +de Galarreta are going to ever get around to consecrating another bishop, since that would be a big problem for their appeal for normalization with Rome.  

Consequently, speaking of 'kinship', it looks like +W will be the only one of the 4 who has handed down what he had received, and therefore may be the only one whose legacy is in solidarity with that left by ABL and is written on his headstone, "TRADIDI QUOD ET ACCEPI".  

.