He's going to have to consecrate bishops.

Hopefully in conjunction with other SSPX bishops.

The world's reaction is likely to only get worse with time, not better.

He has to concern himself with the reaction of the rest of traditionalists, or so he thinks.

Perhaps this will also help to understand this…

Fr. Pfeiffer gave an after mass conference a couple of months ago speaking about the apparent “apathy” of Bishops Tissier and de Gallaretta; adding also of Bishop Williamson’s “lack” of leading in this present SSPX crisis.  

What he said, in context, has some interest in regards to the question of: “What is a Bishop’s Duty, role, and function”.

To my memory, he said that when these four Bishops were consecrated to be at the service, like an “Auxiliary Bishop” to the SSPX (for reason not to have any jurisdiction -a parallel church- schism), and for the four Bishops to be under the “Authority” of the Superior General, the Rectors of Seminaries, and Priors.  The four Bishops, then, never had the true identity, authority, and power of a Bishop to govern.

In other words, as Catholic Bishops, they had the power to teach and to sanctify, but they never had the power to govern.  In what Fr. Pfeiffer was trying to get across, was that the other three Bishops have always been “bossed” around, and told what to do, like a regular SSPX priest inside the congregation.

So it makes sense, in this context, that the three Bishops are acting “febble” to stand up; especially, in what the overall Church crisis necessitated –to be just a “follower” and told what to do for 25-years.

For them, it would seem, is to continue to act like a “Father, adviser, and friend”.

What they really need is to be “knocked” of a horse and see the light of day.  Their Episcopal consecrations as a BISHOP -a decedent of the Apostles- is to fight like a true Shepherd; NOT to stand back, see the True Faith be trampled on and signed off into the modernist camp by the "Superior General", and watch the faithful be led astray.

No!

Stand up...

The little child, St. Agnes, has more Faith and back bone than Bishops Tissier and de Gallaretta are showing.

As far as Bishop Williamson, Fr. Pfeiffer added at that time a few months ago, that he believed that Bishop Williamson thought that he would some how, in time, be re-instated from the injustice of Bishop Fellay.  Today?  Well, Bishop Williamson wrote his thoughts above.

What Bishop Williamson still needs to know, and be confirmed, that he as a Catholic Bishop has the "Authority" from the state of necessity, supplied from the Church, to feed the sheep -to Teach, Sanctify, and to GOVERN!

It is the "Shepherd" that gathers the flock, protects them, and leads them; NOT the other way around!

It may be that they've been "bossed around" - I don't think that was the idea - they were under the Superior General who was supposed to be a priest, but not to be "bossed around."

He wouldn't have needed four of them if it was strictly a matter of giving sacraments.

I am intimately convinced that it is the Society which represents what the Good Lord wants, to continue and maintain the Faith, maintain the truth of the Church, maintain what can still be saved in the Church, thanks to the bishops grouped around the Superior General, playing their indispensable part, of guardians of the Faith, of preachers of the Faith, giving the grace of the priesthood, the grace of Confirmation, things that are irreplaceable and absolutely necessary.

This is a reason a bishop was never supposed to be SG.  The SG is supposed to be above the bishops in one sense, but he would remain inferior to them in position.

Once again, I do not think it possible for a community to remain faithful to the Faith and Tradition if the bishops do not have this Faith and fidelity to Tradition. It's impossible. Say what you will, the Church consists first and foremost of bishops. Even if the priests are of your way of thinking, the priests are influenced by the bishops. Whichever way you look at it, the bishops make the priests, and so guide priests, either in the seminaries or in preaching or in retreats or in any number of ways. It is impossible to maintain Tradition with progressive bishops.

So really the bishops have always had a critical role, a fundamental role in the society, and permitting Bishop Fellay to consolidate power (even to keep Bishop Williamson out the General Chapter) was a huge, huge mistake.

Just remember what the Archbishop said about his consecrations - it was like the blow that struck Goliath.

It might look hopeless, that a consecration will be covered in scorn, but it is the courageous, correct course of action.

Let's just pray Bishop Tissier wakes up.

Forgive my simplistic and possibly presumptuous response to His Excellency's arguments.


Your Excellency, while your authority is crippled, you're desperately needed and required by the world-wide state of emergency to lead the fight.

A new Congregation is not necessary.
Besides, the world would laugh such a Congregation to scorn.

We few faithful realize the SSPX has been hijacked, not unlike Rome.

So, similar to St. Athanasius, you represent the true SSPX congregation who remain members of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Fortunately or unfortunately, you're the last Bishop standing for the truth that the SSPX was founded on and your reward will surely be great in Heaven.

However, due to the enormous potential for loss of souls, before the Chastisement, it would seem your logical Apostolic duty is to ordain priests and consecrate Bishops for the underground Church.

Please correct me if my assumptions are misguided.

Sorry SeanJohnson, I don’t understand this:  “12) And that he went ahead with episcopal consecrations without approval…”. Didn’t he? Pages 614-… (Biography, in Spanish)? BTW, “diplomatic” verbal language of ABL: “es una pequeña bomba” (p. 616). Probably irrelevant given today's circuмstances...

SeanJohnson (Seraphim), Avec l'Immaculée thinks that you should not leave cathinfo now. You are one of those who have the most clear ideas at the moment : you must speak and be on the battlefield.
If you feel you are getting angry and that you loose peace, wait two days before writing but do not leave at the time people need to hear the clear truth. Avec l'Immaculée is with you and supports you.

We must not change anything in our way of thinking or in our behaviour. God is with us. Bp Williamson is wrong. We must tell the priests that they have no choice : either they speak openly, or they sin by omission. If they speak, they will be expelled. And it will be good, if they want to save their souls. Bp Williamson will tell them : "you should not have done that." And the priest will have to answer : "our excellency, it was that or sin, I want to save my soul". And Bp Williamson will go and visit him as he goes to visit Fr Pfeiffer and Chazal and that's it ! With his approval or without his approval, every priest's duty is clear : SPEAK OUT and speak out means to be expelled from the society, of course... Not going to a stupid canonical trial which is a real trap to silence the priest.

Forgive me if this is what Elsa Zardini was also commenting on , but I do take issue with this, given that its incorrect, as it is a big part of the rationale that Bishop Williamson offers.

6) That said, there is nothing in the annals of SSPX history to indicate that Archbishop Lefebvre would have sent his seminarians packing had he not gained the recognition of the Swiss bishop;

I immediately called to mind the autobiography of the Archbishop and his words. To confirm, I grabbed the book; here's what the Archbishop had to say:

....I am not interested in beginning a new undertaking."

Faced with this project which did not appeal to me at all- here again, it was Providence which was compelling me to forge ahead!- I said: "Fine! Listen, it is simple, since you insist, it will be Bishop Charriere who decides. I know bishop Charriere, the bishop of Fribourg. I will go and see him. If he encourages me to go ahead, fine, I will see if I can organize something for these seminarians."There was still no question though, of founding a society just of taking care of these seminarians in a  more direct way. "If bishop Charriere does not agree, then I will not do anything or do only what he tells me."

I do get a mixed feeling reading Bishop Williamson's words as well. But I think this is a danger- to listen to our feelings and then think based on them- which lies in this crisis we're in. There certainly is a revolutionary spirit among us- which is not bad. But this spirit can be dangerous if not harnessed continually. I must be thinking in not God's. In the end, we must look to the great Archbishop and his thinking: he saw Divine Providence in everything- even if it was after the fact, as he points out above. The Archbishop, being open to Gods Will, was lead to form a pious union of priests even though he didn't want to. I think the same Will would guide Bishop Williamson- leader or not. If Providence is calling Bishop Williamson to found a congregation, I am sure he will, whether he wants to or not; if It is not, he will not.

What this means for us, for the resistance and how we move forward is concerning, but we must place our faith in our Blessed Lord and his Blessed Mother's hands. We are not yet deprived of the sacraments, are we? The Society has not yet fallen, has it? When these things come to pass- and some members have decided that they have, right or wrong- I am sure our Blessed Mother will guide the way for us; would she have brought us this far only to abandon us at the last minute? I think not.