PiusX: New Announcement
Abbé Benoît de Jorna, Superior of the French District of PiusX, has indicated that PiusX will announce the consecration of new bishops. In his "Lettre aux Amis & Bienfaiteurs N° 95" he writes that the …More
In his "Lettre aux Amis & Bienfaiteurs N° 95" he writes that the four bishops consecrated in June 1988 are no longer young: "Since the situation in the Church has not improved since 1988, it is necessary to consider giving them assistants who will one day replace them".
He foresees an outburst in the oligarchic media "when such a decision is announced by the Superior General".
At that moment, "the virtue of strength will be very necessary for us on this decisive occasion" and "we must all demonstrate our absolute fidelity to the unadulterated Catholic faith".
Picture: Benoît de Jorna, #newsNvckipmkyb
- Report
Social media
Change post
Remove post
Nicola D.B. shares this
- Report
Remove share
"[I vescovi consacrati da Mons. Lefebvre], allora piuttosto giovani, lo sono evidentemente meno trentasei anni dopo. Poiché la situazione ecclesiastica non è migliorata dal 1988, si è reso necessario pensare di dare loro degli assistenti, che un giorno diventeranno i loro sostituti."
Lisi Sterndorfer shares this
- Report
Remove share
"[The bishops consecrated by Abp. Lefebvre], who were quite young at the time, are obviously less so thirty-six years later. Since the ecclesiastical situation has not improved since 1988, it has become necessary to consider giving them assistants, who will one day become their replacements."
philosopher
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Rafał_Ovile
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
SonoftheChurch
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Naomi Arai
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Rafał_Ovile
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Naomi Arai
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Rafał_Ovile
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Naomi Arai well be sure to know that whether doctrinally orthodox or heterodox not any whatsoever usurper whilst there is already another claimant is allowed to usurp Petrine Office in accordance with Church Constitution and Canon law , finally Church canonic history. Again , there was no claimant while card K. Wojtyla was elected and certainly that wasn't the case with card J Bergoglio, as true …More
Naomi Arai
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Rafał_Ovile
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Sean Johnson
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
It is certainly an interesting convergence of events:
1) Francis to suppress TLM
2) Vigano to be excommunicated
3) SSPX preparing the terrain to consecrate bishops
Is there any connection?
More
1) Francis to suppress TLM
2) Vigano to be excommunicated
3) SSPX preparing the terrain to consecrate bishops
Is there any connection?
Yes, of course, there is a connection between 1 and 3.
Suppressing TLM in the "indult" form would mean more work for SSPX and their bishops.
Vigano (a strange person BTW cf. e.g. his part in the Jericho March or calling Moscow... the Third Rome) is irrelevant here.More
Suppressing TLM in the "indult" form would mean more work for SSPX and their bishops.
Vigano (a strange person BTW cf. e.g. his part in the Jericho March or calling Moscow... the Third Rome) is irrelevant here.
Rafał_Ovile
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@V.R.S. the Sacramental "indults" in contradiction to canon law received by FSSPX from the usurper Bergoglio are much more "strange" than those received by FSSP.
According to reliable sources FSSPXR has become the allergen and hyperactive source of FSSPX reactions, especially abp Vigano.
Nevertheless abp Vigano and Bp Williamson - loyal son of abp Lefebrve - paved the way for new consecrations in …More
According to reliable sources FSSPXR has become the allergen and hyperactive source of FSSPX reactions, especially abp Vigano.
Nevertheless abp Vigano and Bp Williamson - loyal son of abp Lefebrve - paved the way for new consecrations in tradition while the others bargained with the Destroyer, pending to be potentially declared by Church the formal usurper of Petrine Office.
Question is if potential FSSPX consecrations will be accepted without future consequences from Bergoglio after FSSPX's protection and continuos "apology" of Bergoglian antichurch's usurpacy and in consequence destruction of Catholic Church...
All Saints
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Rafał_Ovile
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
SonoftheChurch
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Christopher Shahrazade
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
If the SSPX did consecrate new bishops, they are entirely legit. If we had a true Pope who was not a heretic and a homosexual, and who surrounds himself with the same, it wold be a big deal, and I would side with the Pope. But considering that we don't, the SSPX and other groups are entirely justified to consecrate legit Catholic Bishops in light of the fact that the current Vatican and Pope are …More
Rafał_Ovile
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Naomi Arai
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Boanerges Boanerges
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Tony Smith
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Christopher Shahrazade
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"And if, as the new SSPX tells us, there’s no doubt regarding the validity of the new rites of episcopal consecration or ordination, than this perceived need becomes even more inexplicable.
3) On the other hand, if Fr. de Jorna simply means by the continuation of the Church that nobody will consecrate bishops for them, I would remind the SSPX that their founder never considered the SSPX to be …More
3) On the other hand, if Fr. de Jorna simply means by the continuation of the Church that nobody will consecrate bishops for them, I would remind the SSPX that their founder never considered the SSPX to be synonymous with the Church."
First off, even though I'm barely out of college, I recognize the true Church(Catholic Faith), from a false religion. Pope Francis preaches and promotes bishops of a false "VAtican II" religion.....especially since now the main quality looked for in new bishops of his is openness and acceptance to homosexuality and the sin of homo relationships. Jesus Christ and the traditions of the Faith are not valued....what is is homosexuality, inclusiveness, welcoming to migrants, LGBTQ and TRANS acceptance, etc. This is a perversion of the Catholic Faith, it is Bergoglianism, so I would never accept as valid any of his cardinals or bishops. Therefore the SSPX is totally justified in creating another 4 or more SSPX traditional bishops.
Regards to #2 question, when Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated his bishops and founded the SSPX, the Catholic Church was, despite Vatican II, still the Catholic Faith. But today, the warped and heretical agenda of Pope Francis and his people is not in the least Catholic, but rather a betrayal of it......so the SSPX and their bishops, old and new represent a continuation of the Catholic Faith.....as do groups of sedevacantists with their own bishops around he world.
Considering the homosexualist agenda of Pope Francis and his people, and their rejection of the Catholic tradition and Faith, the SSPX is totally justified to create as many bishops as it needs......they are legit. Bergoglian bishops are not( but Bergoglian bishops probably all are homos).
Sean Johnson
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Of course I agree the SSPX has the right to consecrate bishops in necessity. I’m just pointing out the contradiction between them doing so, and their denunciation of +Faure, and the other concerns mentioned which seem to contradict their recent statements and actions.
Sean Johnson
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Questions:
1) Fr. de Jorna says these new bishops will be necessary for the continuation of the Church. I would ask him why? If the conciliar church (what +Fellay calls the “official church”) is the Catholic Church, it has thousands of bishops, and really needs no more to continue at present than it already has.
2) And if, as the new SSPX tells us, there’s no doubt regarding the validity of the …More
1) Fr. de Jorna says these new bishops will be necessary for the continuation of the Church. I would ask him why? If the conciliar church (what +Fellay calls the “official church”) is the Catholic Church, it has thousands of bishops, and really needs no more to continue at present than it already has.
2) And if, as the new SSPX tells us, there’s no doubt regarding the validity of the new rites of episcopal consecration or ordination, than this perceived need becomes even more inexplicable.
3) On the other hand, if Fr. de Jorna simply means by the continuation of the Church that nobody will consecrate bishops for them, I would remind the SSPX that their founder never considered the SSPX to be synonymous with the Church.
4) The question also arises as to whether these consecrations are already secretly agreed to by Rome. Recall that in 2018 the SSPX sent the results of its General Chapter to Rome for ratification, signaling that it was under Roman control (and one does not do such a thing only to ignore a Roman decision). In this case, has the SSPX again sent dossiers to Rome, with the latter approving candidates it considers acceptable? How will we ever know?
5) Another question regarding the alleged need for bishops: If the SSPX considers the 1968 rite of episcopal consecration to be certainly valid, such that it uses +Hounder to consecrate holy oils, etc., then why not simply obtain the services of other allegedly traditional bishops from the conciliar church like Schneider, Muller, Burke, etc. whom Rome would certainly prefer to the SSPX having more real bishops (even if these newly consecrated bishops were controlled or chosen by Rome)?
6) In 2015, the SSPX issued a communique denouncing the consecration of +Faure by +Williamson, because these two allegedly rejected the authority of Rome (see here: Consecration of Fr. Jean-Michel Faure ). Shall I conclude then, as asked above, that these consecrations come with the secret permission of Rome (another indication that the SSPX is captured by the conciliar church)?
Conversely, if the SSPX really does consecrate bishops against the will of Rome, how will it not be guilty of the indictment it made against +Faure/+Williamson, when it declared:
“ The Society of St. Pius X denounces this episcopal consecration of Fr. Faure, which, despite the assertions of both clerics concerned, is not at all comparable to the consecrations of 1988. All the declarations of Bishop Williamson and Fr. Faure prove abundantly that they no longer recognize the Roman authorities, except in a purely rhetorical manner.”
7) A year ago, the SSPX published this snide article, flatly denying the report that preparations for consecrations were underway: Bishops for the SSPX to be Consecrated on June 30, 2023?
Am I now to believe that in the last year the SSPX suddenly realized a need for bishops and began preparations? If not, why the deception?
Aaron Aukema
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
The SSPX "lost the plot", so to speak, when Archbishop Lefebvre died. They have developed a wierd theology that is internally inconsistent. Archbishop Lefebvre called the Conciliar church a schismatic church which had created it's own man-centered theology with requisite man-centered rites, and a new clergy, based on non-Catholic ideas. The post-Lefebvre Society has abandoned that mentality. It is …More
Aaron Aukema
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
1) & 2) "...it has thousands of bishops, and really needs no more to continue at present than it already has"
"..if, as the new SSPX tells us, there’s no doubt regarding the validity of the new rites of episcopal consecration or ordination, than this perceived need becomes even more inexplicable."
----
To put it shortly:
(i) So-called "Orthodox" "sister churches" of JPII also have thousands of …More
"..if, as the new SSPX tells us, there’s no doubt regarding the validity of the new rites of episcopal consecration or ordination, than this perceived need becomes even more inexplicable."
----
To put it shortly:
(i) So-called "Orthodox" "sister churches" of JPII also have thousands of bishops and priests. Their consecrations and ordinations are valid.
An assumption that a valid [though heterodox (or worse)] bishop suffices has no grounds whatsoever.
(ii) Moreover, in the NO structure there are no bishops dedicated for the Roman Rite sacraments SSPX administers.
3) "On the other hand, if Fr. de Jorna simply means by the continuation of the Church that nobody will consecrate bishops for them, I would remind the SSPX that their founder never considered the SSPX to be synonymous with the Church."
---
Pure speculations about what Fr. de Jorna allegedly thinks (and did not say).
4) "The question also arises as to whether these consecrations are already secretly agreed to by Rome... How will we ever know?"
---
It is quite simple: if Rome responds with condemnations it will mean that they were not agreed.
5) "...why not simply obtain the services of other allegedly traditional bishops from the conciliar church like Schneider, Muller, Burke, etc."
---
They are not members of SSPX. Burke AFAIR is very critical when it comes to SSPX, Muller believes that the traditional Roman Rite is the extraordinary form of the ordinary Novus Ordo as Ratzinger taught.
Sean Johnson
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@VRS-
Neither was Hounder, but that didn’t stop SSPX from foisting him upon the faithful. If him, why not Schneider, et al. Pagliarani also had ICK indult priests serving SSPX chapels in Africa.
You’d better wake up quick.More
Neither was Hounder, but that didn’t stop SSPX from foisting him upon the faithful. If him, why not Schneider, et al. Pagliarani also had ICK indult priests serving SSPX chapels in Africa.
You’d better wake up quick.
@Sean Johnson
It is very likely that these "consecrations" will have the approval of the Vatican, under one of two conditions:
1) that the New Rite of episcopal consecration is used
or
2) that the consecrators are New Rite "bishops."
I think number 2 is more likely, using the Huonder example as the model. Either way, the "consecrations" will be, at best, doubtful...which means, morally-speaking, …More
It is very likely that these "consecrations" will have the approval of the Vatican, under one of two conditions:
1) that the New Rite of episcopal consecration is used
or
2) that the consecrators are New Rite "bishops."
I think number 2 is more likely, using the Huonder example as the model. Either way, the "consecrations" will be, at best, doubtful...which means, morally-speaking, to be treated as if they are invalid, except in cases of extreme necessity.