One need not be an American to be saturated with the effects of Americanism.  The world is saturated with "Americanism."  

It's pretty clear these "Church of Fellay" types just parrot whatever pops into their heads.  

Whether it's "protestant" "American" etc, it doesn't matter if it has any correspondence to reality.  It's just convenient.  

The problem the SSPX is having has nothing to do with America.  It has to do with the post-68 mentality, the cultural marxism that dominates Europe.

I was going to post this yesterday but didn't ......... it's still okay now,
the thread is still going this way:



This might be a first:  the question of whom to consecrate bishop and
how many and when and, even, by whom:  has this ever been discussed
internationally by those who have no power to make the decision?  

Has this topic ever been given air in the past?  That is, when has a
group of, well, Catholics who could eventually become recipients of
the sacraments of said new bishops  (but not their jurisdiction, unless
that is some other major developments occur soon but that's a
separate issue really), ever in the past exchanged ideas and opinions
on the questions of whether, whom, how many, when, and by whom
any and/or all episcopal consecration(s) would best occur?  

Are there any books mentioning such a thing?



Okay then, other than that, what about Fr. Hewko or Fr. Cardozo?  Or Fr. Libietis?

............where is Fr. Libietis?  

By the 11th century..., because of the abuses that arose on the part of the Metropolitans at times, the consecration of bishops gradually began to be reserved in some places to the Supreme Pontiff, and then by the 15th century reservation became universal [and only in the Latin Church].

-V. P. Palazzini, Dictionrium, cit at the word, “mandatum apostlicuм.”

I know in the book "The Priesthood" by St. John Chrysostom, he recounts several tales of priests being nominated by the faithful for the priesthood, and I also seem to recall in the days of St. Augustine/St. Athanasius there being popular nominations of bishops (i.e., It was not until the middle ages that the nomination of bishops was reserved to the Holy See, and even then, only in the Latin Church)

..

By the 11th century..., because of the abuses that arose on the part of the Metropolitans at times, the consecration of bishops gradually began to be reserved in some places to the Supreme Pontiff, and then by the 15th century reservation became universal (and only in the Latin Church).

-V. P. Palazzini, Dictionrium, cit at the word, “mandatum apostlicuм.”

This is most interesting, Seraphim.  Thank you!

The papal mandate so prominent in the scenario of the 4 SSPX bishops and
obviously the concern of ABL at the time, is not of Apostolic origin, per se, but
rather of middle ages origin, which may have had roots in Apostolic times.

That is, the Apostles no doubt decided who would be their bishops, for
they all, as Christ's personally ordained and chosen men, were confirmed
with the power of the Holy Ghost and given individual and personal
infallibility, so their choices of bishops would have been less subject to
any error in judgment.  

Fast forward 1900 years to 1962, when, on October 11th, the Feast of
the Maternity of Mary -- the Blessed Virgin Mary in Whom are formed not
only the High Priest of the Blessed Trinity, God-made-Man, but also the
priests of Holy Mother Church who then would become in the fullness of
their Orders, bishops, also by their gestation in the womb of the Holy
Virgin -- the Vicar of Christ foreswore the Power of the Keys by which
he would be infallible and instead relied on the mercy of God to take its
place.  And this same Conciliar Church that continues to operate without
the use of this infallibility (for nothing has since been dogmatically defined)
demands the sole privilege of consecrating her bishops!  

In short, the "grace of state" to select and/or approve who will become
a bishop belongs to whomever Sacred Tradition provides for such, but it
has been held for the past several centuries by the Supreme Pontiff, due
to corruption and abuses at that time.  However, now, in the PostConciliar
age, the corruption and abuse has settled in to the See of Peter itself,
such that the grace of state may now revert to something of more
ancient precept:  the approval of candidates by popular acclaim!  

I have heard that in the early Church the selection of the Pope was done
by popular acclaim, for in Rome, where Italians are very emotional and
given to outspoken public expression, there had been times when a
number of bishops were in town, and the current Pope died.  So then
Rome had no bishop.  But the people could assemble and demand that
one of the bishops present would become the new bishop of Rome.  And
the papal conclave was a later development of this practice.



Do you have any reference for that?

Quote from: Cronier

As most have surely surmised by now, I am hardly in the camp of the "resistance" but the comment by AJNC struck me as not only absurd but once again it is saturated with that "independent" American attitude that is rampant in Catholicism EVEN Traditional Catholicism today:

That's an incredibly stupid comment, seeing as AJNC, if I recall correctly, is from India.

Enough of this garbage from judaized trads about "Americanism"

Not liking a bunch of French interlopers who send the good priests packing isn't "Americanism"

Familiarity with the arrogance of certain priests isn't "Americanism" either.

We need less arrogant priests.

Priests who don't claim authority that isn't there's to claim.

Those "Church of Fellay" priests really are sectarians.  

And they are also liberals, from the poisoned, authoritarian "liberal" continent of Europe.

Thank you, Telesphorus!
I once asked the pioneer Traditionalist of India, the late Cyril Andrade, why Traditional Catholicism had not taken off in India. He replied that we had not overcome entirely our pagan instincts and so the novelties of Vatican II suited us just fine. For whatever reason at the time, I didn't pursue this topic with him.

A small number of foreign missionaries in India did acquire Celebrets to celebrate the Old Mass when the changes occurred,  but had to do so privately in the early hours of the morning. The vast majority of foreign missionaries, and all the local priests ( who in turn formed the main bulk of priests in India ) accepted the New Mass and all changes without question. At present in Mumbai, one of the last foreign priests in that city, Fr Francis Juan sj, celebrates once a month the Indult Mass for a small group of people, not because he wants to, but out of obedience to his superiors. He is approaching 90. I have 4 priest cousins in India, who are still alive, variously ordained between 1960 and 1967, none of whom find anything wrong with the post Vatican II Church. Another cousin, now deceased, the late Bishop of Aurangabad said of my family that we are not with them because we do not obey the Pope. This latter statement sums up the common view of us, at least among the miniscule number of Catholics here who have heard about the "Lefebvrists". ( Once, at a funeral wake a man referred to us as " those Jehovah Witnesses who say the Latin Mass!").

A neighbour of our chapel is a Fr M. Ataide. I spoke to him today about the Red Sash issue. I personally have never seen this sash worn by any Indian priest apart from Frs Methodius and Ignatius who help the SSPX, and by the SSPX priests themselves. All across Africa and Asia when soutanes are worn, the sashes are either white or black, as far as I have seen in both areas of these two continents where I have lived. I hear that the Jesuits of their Madura Province in India were given special permission to wear red sashes to commemorate the martyrdom of St John Bosco, and this privilege was extended on an optional basis to the secular clergy of that diocese in which St Britto was incardinated. I don't know how the SSPX figures in this.  Fr Ataide,  who was also the former Judicial Vicar of the local Archdiocese,  says that he has protested the use of the Red Sash by SSPX priests to at least one Society priest in person.  The local Archbishop also carries the title of Patriarch of the East Indies so perhaps the local clergy would be irritated to see any "pretender Patriarch" parading about. The talk about Red Sashes not being a Bishop's Purple is just eyewash to them.

Concerning the other "sensitive" issue, among other things, I have either picked up or dropped off SSPX priests, and even bishops, to the airport nearly over a 20 year period, something I am doing till today. My last "VIP" passenger was none other than Fr Pfluger!  This I have done for two of the Resistance priests for a combined period of about 12 years. Of course our views about people and events are subjective and may be wrong.

One hardliner cleric asked me, "Well supposing Bishop Williamson were desirous of consecrating a bishop.  Whom would you recommend?"

The point was well taken, inasmuch as it pointed out that the resistance is so small, the pool of worthy candidates is even smaller.

For my own part, my nomination was for Dom Thomas Aquinas, OSB (Brazil).

Who else is out there?

Above all we should be overwhelmed with gratitude for the magnificent bishops with whom we are currently blessed.  Bishops Williamson, Pivarunas, Hesson, Bonaventure and Madrigal together with those who serve the European Sodalitium Pianum and the Sociedad Religiosa San Luis Rey de Francia are pre-eminent among them.  My own very strong preference would be to see Fathers Joseph Pfeiffer and Basilio Meramo consecrated as bishops of the Church of Rome without delay.  Dom Tomas Aquinas, O.S.B., is also eminently worthy of episcopal consecration.  This would do wonders for the future of the Benedictine Order, a matter of the utmost importance to us and to all mankind.

Loyal Catholic laymen should not underestimate their role in these crucial future developments.  Clergy who choose to be tortuously diplomatic towards heretics and apostates do not obligate laymen to be the same.  In fact throughout our Catholic history the more zealous encouragement to our clergy has usually come mostly from powerful laymen, not so much from the clerics themselves.  Those priests who are best able to serve the interests of Catholic Nationalism should all be among those who receive the holy orders of episcopal consecration.

In the complexity of the Church's crisis, Bishop Williamson is 72 years old, and he knows he is getting frailer (as he said in one of his Eleison Comments), although his spirit is even stronger; it would be reasonable to think that the need would once again match the crisis, as Archbishop Lefebvre has said, to consecrate a number of Bishops (plural), and this time in a need to be more "universal", as the Church is universal.  

In other words, from around the world, from different traditional catholic religious orders would also seem to match wisely -“A loose network of independent pockets of Resistance” that also have a true lineage, by faith, priesthood, and doctrine from Archbishop Lefebvre.

Viva Cristo Rey...