The Episcopal Consecrations of 1988, 1991 and 2015 - Some Perspectives

+

JMJ

In defense of the recent consecration of Fr. Faure by Bishop Williamson, some have argued that the 1991 consecration of Bishop Rangel (RIP) by the Bishops of the SSPX present an equivalent standard of action and principles.  From this they conclude that the SSPX's condemnation of Bishop Williamson's action is flawed as the principles of the 1991 consecration and that of 2015 are equivalent.


The first hole in the argument is that Bishop Williamson, to my knowledge, has not invoked the rationale that this consecration was comparable to that of 1991.

Since Bishop Williamson did not invoke this as his motivation, then anyone ascribing this as his justification is simply putting words into Bishop Williamson's mouth and making an excuse.

The second aspect is the motivation for Archbishop Lefebvre to consecrate a bishop in 1991.

"In the same spirit of broadly applying the supplied jurisdiction that the Church grants in case of necessity to those with the supreme power of orders - the bishop - he suggested to his friend Bishop de Castro Mayer, whose health was failing, "a possible episcopal consecration of someone to succeed him - in Campos - to transmit the Catholic Faith and confer the sacraments reserved to the bishops." The priests of Campos could choose a successor who would be consecrated by the auxiliary bishops of the Society in their capacity as Catholic bishops. " (Marcel Lefebvre - Bishop Tissier de Mallerais)

This clearly demonstrates that the motivation is quite different: Bishop Rangel was consecrated to succeed Bishop de Castro Mayer at the wish of Archbishop Lefebvre. For an order founded by Bishop de Castro Mayer. 

Simply put, Archbishop Lefebvre did not reach beyond the grave and request that Bishop Williamson consecrate Fr. Faure for some loose association of priests.

So, on these grounds, comparisons to the 1991 consecration are baseless from the get-go.

The third aspect to consider is whether or not there is an equivalent principle in the lack of a request of permission from Rome to perform the consecration in 1991 and 2015.

The answer, to my knowledge, objectively is yes. Neither the 1991, nor the 2015 act of consecrations sought Pontifical mandate for the consecrations.  On this grounds, and only this grounds, the events are equal.

For reference, I have drawn up the following table that compares and contrasts the three events on a number of aspects.

	Pontifical Mandate Requested?	Pontifical Mandate Provided?	Publicly Announced?	Condition of Consecrator(s) from the perspective of Rome	Aim of Consecration
SSPX 1988	Yes	Declined	Yes	Archbishop Lefebvre (suspended a divinis) Bishop Castro de Mayer (retired?)	Bishops provided as auxiliary bishops for the SSPX
SSPX 1991	Assumed not.	N/A	Yes	Ex-communicated	Bishop provided as successor to Bishop de Castro Mayer – head of SSJV
'Resistance' 2015	Assumed not.	N/A	Only after the event was leaked to Rorate-Caeli.	Suspended a divinis	?

Conclusion:
The comparison of the 2015 consecration to the 1988 and even the 1991 episcopal consecrations is inconsistent on a number of levels.  However, none is more evident than the aim of the consecration:

In 1988 and 1991 each consecration was associated with an order of the Church.  This consecration has no such correlating motivation. It is a the creation of a vagus Bishop for vagus Priests.

PS.
I've added a png file of the chart above for linking purposes.