Skip to main content

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.


Comments

  1. 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. 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

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

Shining the light of Church Teaching on the doctrinal positions of the SSPX and the Resistance. Principles are guides used to aid in decision making.  It stands to reason that bad principles will lead to bad decisions. The recent interactions between Rome and the SSPX has challenged a number of closely held cultural assumptions of people in both sides of the disagreement. This has resulted in cultural skirmishes in both Rome and the SSPX. Since it is the smaller of the two, the skirmishes have been more evident within the SSPX.  The cultural fault-line that Bishop Fellay crossed appears to be linked to two points of Catholic Doctrine: Ecclesiology and Obedience.  The cultural difference of view points is strong enough that it has resulted in the expulsion of a number of members.  It should also be noted that some other priests expelled since the beginning of the latest interactions (starting in 2000) held the same view points and have joined with the l...

Regarding Post: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer no longer ... now Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer (Can't see this being a problem...)

 + JMJ   I've been watching the popularity of the post about Fr. Pfeiffer's attempted episcopal consecration and its continued top listing on the 'popular posts' list at the bottom of posts.  After some thought, I decided that I don't want to be responsible for anyone joining Fr. Pfeiffer's 'group', however unlikely that would be at this time. So I have reverted the article to the draft state. If anyone wants it reinstated, I would ask that they comment on this post with a rationale for reinstatement. P^3

Schism

There is some question as to whether the Pope can be in actual schism as per the Cardinal Torquemada: Citing the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, Torquemada further teaches:  "Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states [De Consuetudine] that, it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself, does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, 'he need not be followed' . . . " [Cited from A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism, Father Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.D., M. Div. (2nd edition, St. Francis Press, India) p. 29. The full quotation from Cardinal Torquemada reads, "By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent on its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding som...

The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II: Dr. John Lamont

+ JMJ This is the second article from Dr. Lamont from his lecture given in May 2014. P^3 Source Part A: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny Source Part B: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny 8 May2014 The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II By John Lamont To understand how the Jesuit conception of obedience departed from earlier conceptions, it is helpful to compare it with the teaching of St. Thomas on obedience. The fundamental difference between the two is that St. Thomas considers the proper object of obedience to be the precept of the superior (2a2ae q. 104 a. 2 co., ad 3). Obedience that seeks to forestall the expressed will of the superior does not bear on what the superior wants or thinks in general, but only on what the superior intends to command. St. Ignatius’s lowest degree of obedience, which he does not consider to be virtuous, is thus what St. Thomas considers to be the only form of obedience. St. Thomas holds that St. Ignatius’s alleged higher forms of o...