Skip to main content

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

Image
By
+
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.


Labels:

Comments

  1. AnonymousJanuary 9, 2016 at 7:35 AM

    I boycott the novus ordo,attend a Catholic church which holds the pre-1950 traditions.This consecration is needed as many valid catholic bishops are dying off.The "consecration craze" of the 80's & 90's died down.The valid priest's are dying off faster than the valid bishop's.With the SSPX fixing to become the new FSSP,the World needs all the valid catholic bishop's it can receive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TradicalFebruary 13, 2016 at 2:39 PM

      There are a number of issues with your assertion that "valid priests" are dying off along with "valid bishops".

      Briefly: The rite of consecration of priests and bishops is valid. To assert otherwise is to call into question the doctrine of indefectibility (do you really want to open up that can of worms?) as well as the validity of the eastern rites which are the origin of some of the elements that most question in this day an age.

      P^3

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Rome,the SSPX and this time of Crisis - Updated

By
+ JMJ Obviously there's lots of events right now. First we have the April 1st - I almost thought it was April Fools - meeting between Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay.  Nothing really news worthy as this is a natural progression as Rome appears to be considering fulfilling Archbishop Lefebvre's wish to 'accept us as we are'. Second we have the April 8th publication of what will be a verbose exhortation of the Synod of the Family. I'm willing to bet that the Pope will give with one hand (unilateral regularization of SSPX) and take with the other (ambiguous document that opens the flood gates of sin further). Much to pray for. P^3
30 comments
Read more

A Reply to Martin Blackshaw’s FLAWED Remnant article titled: FLAWED: SSPX Advice on Abortion-tainted Vaccines

By
 + JMJ    An article has appeared in the Remnant (link to article) and I am afraid that there are a number of flaws in it that need to be addressed. The author, Martin Blackshaw, believes that both the Church and the SSPX are misapplying the principle of Moral Theology called 'Cooperation In Evil'.  Unfortunately, Mr. Blackshaw rests most of his arguments on citing authors that support his position, without considering the possibility that they are wrong. This highlights a key factor in this crisis: ignorance of the faith and its application . I don't am not singling out Mr. Blackshaw for this criticism, I have observed that it applies to laity and religious, superior and subject a like.  No one seems immune in this enduring crisis, myself included.  I further believe that this ignorance is why so many Catholics, both traditional and non, rely on their gut feeling or "Catholic conscience" for charting their way through this crisis of the faith.  While...
25 comments
Read more

Rorate-Caeli URGENT: Pope tells Italian Bishops he plans to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum

By
 + JMJ  Now THIS is probably the most important news item in the last two years - yes I place this above the pandemic. I'm only surprised by how long it took for this to surface during this pontificate. I hope and pray that it is false or that if it comes to pass that somehow some good will arise out of the ashes of Summorum Pontificum. P^3  Courtesy of Rorate-Caeli URGENT: Pope tells Italian Bishops he plans to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (Updated) Update (May 26): Rorate's additional sources in Rome have confirmed this Wednesday that Francis has indeed a text on Summorum Pontificum lined up, which has been developed for months, but what is not known at this point is if the text is just about a more limited take on the Summorum application questionnaire (first revealed by us in the spring of 2020) or about an overhaul of Summorum Pontificum in general: drafts could be dealing with both matters. It is also not impossible for a text to come ou...
9 comments
Read more

If Pope Francis is bad - what about Pope St. John Paul II et al?

By
+ JMJ So here we are on the apparent cusp of yet another post conciliar Papal canonization. This time we have Pope's John-Paul I and Paul VI canonizations to 'look forward' to. This follows, obviously, on the heels of Pope St. John Paul II's canonization? So the first question that I usually encounter is: How is it possible, keeping in mind the doctrine on infallibility of canonizations (note doctrine not dogma), that Pope St. John Paul II is a Saint? First, what does it mean???  According to the doctrine of dogmatic facts - it is the universal opinion of Theologians that canonizations are infallible.  It means that they enjoy the beatific vision.  ... that's it.  That is the doctrine and it is at the level of universal opinion of theologians.  It is called a 'dogmatic fact'. That they made mistakes is obvious.  That the miracles seem to not be very miraculous is also a bit of an issue. Here's something to consider: The rush that surrou...
16 comments
Read more

The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

By
Introduction The recent and continuing interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX have been a great opportunity for prayer and reflection.  The basis for the disagreement is theological and not liturgical. As noted by Dr. Lamont (2012), the SSPX theological position on the four key controversial aspects of the Second Vatican Council are base on prior theological work that resulted from relevant magisterial pronouncements.  So it is difficult to understand the apparent rejection of the theological position of the SSPX.
17 comments
Read more