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

Author Topic: Too long didn't read - Essay on SSPX consecrations  (Read 194 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 33617
  • Reputation: +29878/-628
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • A man sent me this PDF, asking me to post it and have a discussion about it.

    I don't know where he's coming from, what position he has, or anything.

    But the truth is that I don't have time to read it. It doesn't interest me enough to spend my last sliver of free time on it.
    I can't be bothered to read it. The argument defending +ABL is old-news to me. Applying that to today, as if the current leadership were basically +ABL, is ridiculous. +ABL didn't come out critical of a Trad bishop (Bp. Williamson) consecrating a new bishop. The neo-SSPX did.

    TL;DR.  Too long, didn't read.


    February 13th 2026
    WHAT TO THINK OF THE BISH OP-CONSECRATION PROJECT OF THE SOCIETY
    OF ST. PIUS X?
    After several years of speculation and rumors, on February 2, Fr. Davide Pagliarani, Superior General
    of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), a religious congregation founded by Archbishop Lefebvre,
    announced during a sermon the intention to consecrate bishops on July 1. Two official statements
    from the congregation were also published in this regard.
    Two interviews with Fr. Pagliarani have been published by the Society, clarifying the reasons behind
    the project of episcopal consecrations.
    Obviously, the modernists and the media are already “tearing their garments,” labeling those
    consecrations as “illicit” and “schismatic” if they are not carried out with the approval of Rome.
    The truth is that those consecrations would be valid, because they would presumably be performed in
    the traditional Catholic rite. They would even be lawful if they are done for the good of souls and the
    Church. However, there are circuмstances that fill us with concern about the way they are being
    planned.
    What should we think of this project of episcopal consecrations? Does the SSPX follow the same
    criteria that Archbishop Lefebvre used when he consecrated four bishops in 1988? Is it realistic and
    prudent to trust the Roman authorities and ask for their authorization?
    Let us analyze the historical and theological circuмstances surrounding these possible consecrations.
    1.- Why does the Society of Saint Pius X decide to perform these episcopal consecrations now?
    The practical reasons for making these episcopal consecrations now have to do with the fact that the
    Society has only two bishops left from the four consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre 37 years ago,
    who are approaching 70 years of age.
    The pastoral reason invoked by Fr. Pagliarani is the desire to spiritually assist souls who need the
    ministry of bishops. As we know, bishops are indeed necessary to confer certain sacraments.
    However, the superiors of the Society believe that they must seek permission from the pope to
    perform these consecrations. In that sense, the Society sent several letters to Leo XIV in 2025
    requesting his "authorization" (sic).

    ...
    The recent written response from Rome to those letters, according to the Society, did not
    correspond at all to their expectations. It was obviously to be expected that Rome would oppose those
    episcopal consecrations.
    Following the recent public announcement of these consecrations by the Society, the Pope appointed
    Cardinal Víctor "Tucho" Fernández to meet with Fr. Pagliarani to discuss the matter. The meeting
    took place on February 12, and in summary, the Vatican calls on the Society to postpone the
    consecrations; it proposes theological discussions and studying the study of a possible canonical
    solution to the Society’s "irregular" status. In short, Rome is asking the Society to enter "full
    communion with the Church." Which "church" are we talking about? Certainly not the Catholic
    Church, but the false conciliar church.
    The Society has promised to respond in the coming days to the proposals of Rome. We shall see if
    the Society "takes the bait."
    2.- Is the way the SSPX intends to perform these episcopal consecrations correct?
    Unfortunately, the Society seems to be excessively concerned with obtaining the Pope's authorization
    to perform these consecrations.
    It is true that, according to the ORDINARY laws of the Church, the authorization for the consecration
    of bishops belongs to the Pope, and bypassing that authorization normally incurs excommunication.
    However, there are extraordinary circuмstances that can justify episcopal consecrations without
    necessarily obtaining the approval of the Vatican.
    This cautious and legalistic approach of the Society contrasts with the way Archbishop Lefebvre
    proceeded with the episcopal consecrations in 1988.
    The archbishop did not start by asking "permission" from John Paul II to do them.
    Archbishop Lefebvre began by noting the gravity of the Church’s crisis and the spiritual "STATE OF
    NECESSITY" to justify the episcopal consecrations, without asking the pope for permission. In
    particular, he was deeply scandalized by the ecuмenical meeting with all the false religions in Assisi in
    1986 presided over by John Paul II. Moreover, the Archbishop considered that Rome's negative
    response to a series of 39 objections presented by the Society regarding the serious errors in the
    docuмent "Dignitatis humanae" from the council on false religious freedom was proof that Rome
    persisted in those errors.
    A public declaration prepared by Archbishop Lefebvre, in Albano, on October 19, 1983—almost 5
    years before the consecrations—demonstrates that Archbishop Lefebvre had made his decision long
    before 1988: "To safeguard the Catholic priesthood, which continues the Catholic Church and not an adulterous
    church, Catholic bishops are needed... These episcopal consecrations will be not only valid, but also, given the historical
    circuмstances, lawful; it is sometimes necessary to abandon legality to remain in right."
    What is understood by the "state of spiritual necessity"? Archbishop Lefebvre understood it, following
    the principles of Catholic morality, as an exceptionally grave state in which the Church
    finds herself due to the deviation of doctrine and morality by her internal enemies, and which
    endangers the salvation of souls. As a consequence, ordinary laws cannot be followed, nor can the
    hierarchs who collaborate in the destruction of the Church be obeyed, because it would harm souls.

    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    My accounts (Paypal, Venmo) have been (((shut down))) PM me for how to donate and keep the forum going.

    Offline Traditional Sermons

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 64
    • Reputation: +16/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Too long didn't read - Essay on SSPX consecrations
    « Reply #1 on: Today at 02:50:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Gemini, summarize this docuмent in no more than two paragraphs


    This docuмent analyzes the Society of St. Pius X’s (SSPX) plan to consecrate new bishops on July 1, 2026, a decision prompted by the aging
      and dwindling number of its current prelates. While the SSPX leadership seeks authorization from the Vatican to avoid further canonical
      irregularity, the text criticizes this "legalistic" approach as a departure from the "state of necessity" principle established by its
      founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, in 1988. The author argues that seeking permission from a "modernist Rome" compromises the SSPX’s
      mission to preserve traditional Catholicism and warns that such a dialogue inevitably leads to major doctrinal concessions and the
      neutralization of the Society’s resistance.


      Ultimately, the docuмent urges the SSPX to proceed with the consecrations without Roman approval, characterizing the move as an
      "anti-modernist atomic bomb" necessary to safeguard the traditional priesthood and sacraments. It points to Bishop Richard Williamson and
      the "Catholic Resistance" as the proper model for perpetuating the episcopate independently of the post-Conciliar hierarchy. The summary
      concludes that the Society faces a critical choice: either submit to a "false conciliar church" for legal recognition or return to
      Lefebvre’s uncompromising line of separation to preserve the true Catholic faith.


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 33617
    • Reputation: +29878/-628
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Too long didn't read - Essay on SSPX consecrations
    « Reply #2 on: Today at 03:25:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Basically I was right then -- it's old news. Ask anyone in the Resistance about the upcoming Consecrations, and you'll get the same material. Maybe in Neo-SSPX circles it's special and insightful/rare?
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    My accounts (Paypal, Venmo) have been (((shut down))) PM me for how to donate and keep the forum going.

    Offline Traditional Sermons

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 64
    • Reputation: +16/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Too long didn't read - Essay on SSPX consecrations
    « Reply #3 on: Today at 03:29:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • But Bishop Williamson didn't like The Sound of Music, and he denied the h0Ɩ0cαųst.

    Therefore he was bad.So SSPX can't be with his bishops.