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

"Theology of the Body" explained - a Traditional Catholic view - Rorate Caeli

+ JMJ In prep for yet another attack on Catholic Dogma, Doctrine and Morals, I'd like to point out an excellent article posted on Rorate earlier this year:  "Theology of the Body" explained - a Traditional Catholic view - Rorate Caeli . To date my only real reaction the 'Theology of the Body' has been that what little I read doesn't 'feel right'.  The more specific term for this sensation is Cognitive Dissonance or Cultural Dissonance. In short, what I read of the basic tenets of 'Theology of the Body' seemed to contradict I believed about the Catholic Church's teaching on the purpose of marriage.  The explanations that I received from 'modern' Catholics, didn't do anything to allay my concerns. This article goes to the heart of why it didn't feel right.

Can Catholics Pray with Protestants??? Part 2

 + JMJ While I have explicit permission from the Canadian, US and FSSPX.News sites, as a follow-up to Part 1, I am going to post here an article on the FSSPX.UK website to provide a bona-fide resource for other Traditional Catholics looking for the truth as opposed to just belief on this topic. FSSPX.UK: Matters arising – May We Pray with Non-Catholics? P^3 Matters arising : May we pray with non-Catholics? Rev. Nicholas Mary, C.SS.R. Fr. Nicholas Mary answers topical questions in the light of moral theology and canon law. Public prayer As always, before we can answer a question adequately, terms must be defined and distinctions made. The general principle is clear, as Cardinal Newman writes: From time immemorial, from the earliest ages, members of the Church have been forbidden  communicatio in sacris  [i.e. participation in religious rites] with those who were external to it. This prohibition is not intended as the expression of any judgment on this...

SSPX Confessions and Marriages

Courtesy of SSPX.org Valid: SSPX's confessions and marriages January 15, 2014  District of the US The SSPX's priests are often accused of not being able to validly hear confessions or perform marriages. But this false claim falls flat upon a close examination of Canon Law — particularly in light of the crisis in the Church. A frequent accusation made by opponents of the Society of St. Pius X is that the confessions and marriages undertaken in its chapels are invalid because its priests lack jurisdiction. This false assertion not only ignores the Church's jurisprudence on  supplied jurisdiction , but more importantly, the reality that a state of necessity  exists due to the post-conciliar crisis. On the canonical side of things, we re-present here the important and comprehensive 3-part study of Fr. Ramon Angles,  The Validity of Confessions & Marriages in the Chapels of the Society of St. Pius X  which in summary demonstrat...

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