Author Topic: What Exactly is the Difference Between the Recent Consecrations and 1988? (Read 265 times)

Twice dyed · « **Reply #5 on:** **Yesterday** at 09:11:56 PM »

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.

OABrownson1876 · « **Reply #6 on:** **Yesterday** at 10:17:36 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on Yesterday at 08:28:58 PM

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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #7 on:** **Today** at 04:51:55 AM »

Quote from: IndultCat on Yesterday at 07:13:43 PM

This is your big mistake. Completely ignore Taylor Marshall, Michael Matt and all of the other "Trad Grifters". Ask any members or former members of the SSPX. Many are on this site and will be happy to provide you with that information. Just keep away from Marshall and his ilk. You'll be much better off.

This

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #8 on:** **Today** at 05:02:39 AM »

Quote from: OABrownson1876 on Yesterday at 10:17:36 PM

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.

I believe that it is more accurate to call him Bishop Carmona, not Bishop Rivera, as Rivera was his mother’s family name.

Stubborn · « **Reply #9 on:** **Today** at 05:06:18 AM »

All good answers.

Below is a sermon from Fr. Wathen given a day or two after the 1988 consecrations about that situation and the situation in the Church. I do not know of another such sermon or talk that was given so close to that event. You will find that aside from there being a different pope today, nothing has changed. About 19 minutes.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: What Exactly is the Difference Between the Recent Consecrations and 1988? (Read 265 times)

Twice dyed

Re: What Exactly is the Difference Between the Recent Consecrations and 1988?

OABrownson1876

Re: What Exactly is the Difference Between the Recent Consecrations and 1988?

Stubborn

Re: What Exactly is the Difference Between the Recent Consecrations and 1988?

Quo vadis Domine

Re: What Exactly is the Difference Between the Recent Consecrations and 1988?

Stubborn

Re: What Exactly is the Difference Between the Recent Consecrations and 1988?