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

Author Topic: What Exactly is the Difference Between the Recent Consecrations and 1988?  (Read 167 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Twice dyed

  • Supporter
   I find myself asking the same thing, like 2x a week, so I can relate...Thanks for posting.

May 5, 1988, +Lefebvre signed the protocol and revoke it the next morning. The date is significant in that Rome chose that day to give a sense that St.Pius V was "Providentially" approving of the return of the a Trad bishop =Tridentine Mass, etc. But the Archbishop realized they were just just postponing to approve ONE TRAD bishop; and were just waiting for +L to pass on to eternity. Then 55 days later he consecrated 4 bishops...he had given up on the Modernist Hierarchy, and reacted promptly. He called out the enemy publicly.

   By 2026, neo-SSPX had hoped that the Modernist Church (the rotten part of the apple) would approve some new bishops. They waited and waited many years for a favourable day. Feb 2, 2026  it was announced, and only many months later, July 1, new bishops were consecrated. So the SSPX trusted , hoped to make a deal, with the Modernist Church (Which is 5x worse then 1988, at least). Where is the strong condemnation of Vat II, and of the scandals, and of the sin idol church.? 

That is one stark difference. Almost 180 degrees contrast in orientation. 

+Lefebvre didn't appeal the so-called exco. 
 Fr Pagliarani is appealing.   The future is uncertain, yes.

Offline OABrownson1876

  • Supporter
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.
Or Fr. Goerge Musey (ordained a priest in 1952) who was consecrated a bishop by Bp. Moises Rivera in Acapulco in 1982. Apparently, Bps. Rivera and Zamora (both consecrated by Bp. Thuc) felt that a revolution might break out in Mexico, so they consecrated Musey to keep alive the Faith in the States. One day someone needs to write a history of Traditional Catholicism, good, bad, and ugly.  And then Bp. Musey consecrated Fr. Vezelis a bishop.