CathInfo.com

I am struggling to understand what - functionally - was the difference between the recent consecrations and Archbishop Lefebvre's?

For example, I am trying to understand Taylor Marshall's recent statements.

He went from supporting the sppx, to now, not supporting.    I watched his video, but could not ascertain why.  

I suspect there are others out there who have also flipped, or flip-flopped and am wondering at the rational.    

I am struggling to understand what - functionally - was the difference between the recent consecrations and Archbishop Lefebvre's?

For example, I am trying to understand Taylor Marshall's recent statements.

He went from supporting the sppx, to now, not supporting.    I watched his video, but could not ascertain why. 

I suspect there are others out there who have also flipped, or flip-flopped and am wondering at the rational.   

Good question. I'm not sure I have the answer, as I don't follow Taylor Marshall, but I believe he attends the Fraternity of St Peter.

Now the Fraternity of St Peter, and all the 'legal' Latin Mass groups are not Traditional Catholics, they are better called 'Newchurch conservatives'. They obviously have a certain understanding of a problem with the Conciliar Church and a certain love of Tradition, yet their understanding is very superficial. Ultimately, they place obedience - false obedience - above faith.

This is how the Fraternity of St Peter was born in the aftermath of the 1988 Consecrations - it was composed of those priests who left the SSPX because they had to obey the pope. In fact, very soon after those consecrations (certainly within the first few years), one of the faithful in Australia wrote to Fr Bisig, the superior general of the FSSP, asking him if it was okay for him to attend the SSPX when there was no FSSP priest in town. Fr Bisig, formerly one of the Assistants to the Superior General of the SSPX, advised that he should not attend the SSPX but should rather go to the Novus Ordo. This letter is somewhere in the public domain but I don't have it at hand.

So for them, it is first and foremost a question of obeying the pope... regardless of what the order is, apparently believing that a pope could not give an order harmful to the faith. Many a sedevacantist holds the same view and therefore concludes that he cannot be pope, which is why Bishop Williamson said that Conciliarism and Sedevacantism are two sides of the same coin - just different solutions to the same question.

Before these recent consecrations of July 1, there was a certain tolerance of the SSPX by the Roman authorities, and indeed more than a tolerance - they had been granted faculties for confessions, marriages, ordinations etc by Pope Francis. It is perhaps on this account that many of the Newchurch conservatives, like Taylor Marshall, looked kindly upon them.

But now, with the new excommunications, Rome has once again made the obedience tune resonate in their hearts.

I was only the other day talking with some faithful at the SSPX. One had converted to the Catholic Faith in 1990 in the Novus Ordo and then found the 'Indult' Latin Mass after migrating from another country. Then she found the SSPX 10 years ago. Immediately she noticed a massive difference with the priests and the faithful compared with the Indult community and she never went back to the Indult. That was one story. Others told me that at this Oratorian Latin Mass community they are now being required to sign the papers required by Rome saying they will not go to the SSPX! We have noticed quite a few newcomers at the SSPX who have seen the light on account of this.

So that is my guess, OSanctissimus. 'Obedience' has always been their stumbling block.

I highly recommend you read Archbishop Lefebvre's Open Letter to Confused Catholics if you are new to the scene: https://sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/index.htm You will find a lot of other good reading material on this site also. 

Here's the short answer:

There isn't much difference.

Fr. Frank Slupski, C.S.S.R. (independent) getting consecrated bishop
+ABL consecrating 4 bishops in 1988
+W consecrating bishops for the Resistance
Neo-SSPX consecrating 4 bishops in 2026

What do they all have in common?

They are all legit, justified, under the heading of "done for the good of the Church". When the Church is in Crisis, bishops have a right -- and a duty! -- to pass on their Orders to other bishops, who will continue to preserve and propagate the Sacred Deposit of the Faith.
In a time of Crisis like we're in today, getting permission from the destroyer-pope is spurious, completely not necessary.

You can't condemn another group consecrating bishops just because you're not on their "team". If they did it for the same reasons as +Lefebvre for example, how can you criticize them? You can't. At least not on that heading.

Now the group might have fundamental flaws, their ship might be sinking, and they might be doing many things wrong. But consecrating bishops without papal mandate is NOT one of those "wrongs".

Anyone who can't admit their enemy is doing some thing(s) right, has some good in them, etc. is a brainwashed, NPC fan-boy, not very interested in the Truth, and therefore I have zero respect for them.


P.S. Don't feel bad, I fell for this when I was a naive, fervent, go-getter seminarian. I was criticizing the aforementioned Bp. Slupski for getting himself consecrated -- but the deacon surprised me with his response. (I was in a private conference with a deacon during the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius) He pointed out that we can't criticize him for that, considering his motivation was the same as +ABL. That stuck with me, and I stand corrected on that mistake, to this day.