SSPX to Consecrate Bishop Approved by Rome Soon?


All the changes, compromises, and contradictions manifesting themselves within the SSPX these last several years have as their proximate or remote causes legalism (I.e., The mistaken and usually emotional/sentimental impression that norms and laws promulgated for normal times and circumstances are nonetheless applicable and binding in a state of universal grave general spiritual necessity). Legalism necessarily, therefore, presupposes doubt about the state of necessity, despite all the evidence (objective and obvious) of its existence:

The request to “lift” the excommunications; the acceptance of ordinary jurisdiction for confessions; the gratefulness for the new pastoral guidelines regulating SSPX marriages; the growing acceptance of the new Code of Canon Law; the relentless 20+ year drive for an empty “regularization; etc.

All these things are the byproducts of a Society which has lost perspective on the gravity of the crisis because scruples (the inevitable consequence of trying to measure the morality of human acts according to laws only applicable in normal times, but obsolete or even evil in times of crisis) have caused them to doubt the moral righteousness of their raison d’etre, and inspired them to seek their own (perceived) particular good over the good of the Church.

In such a panicked state of mind, one would logically expect certain other legalistic consequences to follow (e.g., No more “unauthorized” episcopal consecrations).

Now I hear that the persistent rumor in Europe is that Rome will soon choose an SSPX candidate for episcopal consecration.

The Society will claim that it has chosen the candidate, because the consecrand will be chosen from among the dossiers presented to Rome for consideration.

But of course, as was the case with Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, dossier after dossier will be rejected until that of a liberal is presented, which Rome will quickly approve: Bishop Celier, Bishop Simoulin, Bishop Themann, Bishop Robinson, etc.

Or perhaps in the branded/capitulated SSPX, such a candidate will be willingly presented to Rome in the first bundle of dossiers?

In any case, it really matters very little whether or not this rumor is true today:

Whenever, eventually, the Society requires another bishop, this will be the process by which he is chosen (which means, effectively, it is Rome choosing the Bishop).

The idea of Menzingen proceeding with an “unapproved” episcopal consecration in the Ralliement era is preposterous, as it would destroy 20 years of preparation and “discreet but not secret” (GREC) machinations.

But this inevitable development, whenever it shall transpire, will represent yet another further entanglement within the sticky web of conciliarism:

The stupid faithful and clergy will receive the implicit message that only the legal permission of heretical and sodomite Rome will suffice to legitimize episcopal consecrations for the Society (reinforcing a message telegraphed to the world shortly before the General Chapter that it would be necessary for the SSPX to request Rome’s ratification/approval of the election results. Is this how Bishop Fellay and Fr. Schmidberger came back into authority on the last day of the Chapter?), further eroding their reliance upon, and confidence in, supplied jurisdiction, and consequently eroding confidence in the validity of their own sacraments received/dispensed in previous years (thereby increasing the scrupulous urgency among the clergy and faithful for a juridical recognition).

In 2015, I wrote a rebuttal to Fr. Francois Laisney’s letter “Striking Contrasts” (the latter of which sought to distinguish the 1988 episcopal consecrations from that of Bishop Faure). I noted then that, given the line of argumentation Fr. Laisney was using (I.e., basically, circumstances no longer seemed to justify unauthorized consecrations, etc.), he was telegraphing already that the SSPX would no longer consider “unapproved” consecrations.

That translates into surrendering the very principal of regeneration and continuity to the enemy. In such a case, the defeat would be definitive.

But this is today (or tomorrow) the situation, and will represent the final stage in betrayal:

Captured, with no means of regeneration, and doomed to die, that same Society which today exhibits a split personality disorder as it migrates from Tradition to conciliarism will tomorrow be fully conciliar.

Future contingencies now come into sharper focus, and one does not need to be a prophet to see how this will all play out:

Just as the FSSP and other PCED groups were the worst enemies of Tradition (luring away sentimental “traditionalists” with the veneer of the Mass, at the expense of the battle for doctrine, all the while slowly being converted to conciliarism, just as planned in Rome), so too is the SSPX now beginning to take on a similar role vis-a-vis the Resistance.

What Archbishop Lefebvre said of the FSSP et al (“They are shaking hands with the enemy.”) now pertains to his disloyal offspring, who have proven themselves prodigal sons, and squandered their inheritance.

The logical regression into conciliarism will continue: Today, Rome will control the selection of episcopal candidates. Tomorrow Rome will participate in the actual episcopal consecrations (despite the doubtful Orders of their bishops). Later, the Society’s own questionable bishops will consecrate (?) and ordain candidates for the PCED communities, and so on, and so forth, degenerating all along the way, and continually losing whatever remnants of Tradition had been retained until then.

But this punishment will always be just, and a diminished remnant of a remnant of a remnant will maintain the faith until our Lord comes again.


An analogous example of legalism in grave PHYSICAL necessity (to further illustrate why laws do not apply in necessity if obeying them works to the detriment of souls):

A man is critically injured in a car accident, and needs to get to the hospital before he dies:

The legalist says, “The law is very clear that the speed limit is 60 miles per hour, and the law must be obeyed.”

Hindered by imprudent adherence to the law, the injured man dies.

The right-thinking person says, “If I do not exceed the speed limit (thereby breaking the law), this man will die.”

This second man was prudent, and understood that necessity dispensed him from the obligation to obey the letter of the law which, in normal circumstances, would have bound him.

In the current crisis in the Church, the SSPX, which used to imitate the second man, more and more is imitating the first man…to the detriment of souls.



November 17, 2018

Number DXCII (592)Printable PDF

How can one bishop please both Church and world?
The Devil’s power is day by day unfurled!

A rumour has been flying around in Catholic Tradition that there will soon be in the Society of St Pius X the consecration of a new bishop, or bishops. Rumours need never be taken too seriously, but on the other hand they are not always without foundation. In the present case the SSPX certainly needs new bishops, because Bishop Tissier has for some time now been not in good health, Bishop de Galarreta as the Society’s First Assistant must now concern himself with administering Society affairs worldwide, and that leaves Bishop Fellay alone with complete freedom to travel anywhere for Confirmations and Ordinations. So there is certainly foundation for the rumour of a new consecration.

But the rumour goes further, because it says that the bishop(s) to be consecrated will have the approval of the Roman authorities, and here is where the rumour is worth considering, even if it is untrue, because here lies the clearest example of the impossible dead end into which the Newsociety has driven itself by its policy of seeking official approval from the Conciliar authorities in Rome. For if the bishop elect has the approval of unrepentant Conciliarists, how can he be pleasing to true Traditionalists? And if he has the approval of true Traditionalists, how can he be at the same time be pleasing to the masters of Conciliarism in Rome? And the answer to that question can only be either that the Conciliarists are giving up on their Vatican II, or Traditionalists are going over to Vatican II, or that Conciliarists and Traditionalists are meeting somewhere in between, as though 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 can be reconciled at 2+2=four and a half.

For do we need to be reminded that Catholic Tradition and Vatican II are intrinsically irreconcilable? Yes we do, because we poor human beings are always wanting to have our cake and eat it. We are always wanting to square the circle, to mix oil and water, to dance with the Devil in this life while not spoiling our chances of enjoying with God in the next life. We want to have it both ways, so that any recipe for reconciling God with the Devil will always sell like hot cakes until it inevitably fails, whereupon it will be immediately succeeded by the next recipe for doing the same thing. The failure is inevitable because in the words of the Anglican Bishop Butler of the 18th century, “Things are what they are, their consequences will be what they will be, why then should we seek to be deceived?”

Thus Catholic Tradition came from Jesus Christ, who is God, while Vatican II (1962–1965) came from the desire of modern man to combine God’s religion with godless modernity arising from the French Revolution. For about Vatican II both Cardinal Suenens on the left and Archbishop Lefebvre on the right said the same thing, namely that it was the Revolution of 1789 inside the Church: religious liberty to free men from all truth of the past, equality to level down all order of old Christendom, and fraternity to create the New World Order of the Masonic brotherhood of man without God. Of course Vatican II has failed, except in the secret purpose of its Judeo-Masonic designers to destroy God’s Church, and since Almighty God, to cleanse His Church, is still giving power to His age-old enemies to scourge it, then they are by no means renouncing their Council, rather today’s Church authorities are putting it into action more than ever.

Therefore if the same authorities approve of a bishop elect coming from inside the once Traditional SSPX, it can only be to help dissolve any remaining resistance from within the SSPX to their Masonic Newchurch. And if any Traditionalists approve of the bishop elect who pleases the Newchurch, it can only be because they are losing their Catholic Faith under the overpowering influence of today’s worldwide apostasy. “Caveant consules,” said the Latins. Let those who are in command watch out.

Kyrie eleison.


In the [Francophone Catholic Fidelity forum] we read the following: “A priest friend told me that the minutes of the July Chapter were published in the last Cor Unum (internal bulletin of the FSSPX).” “On the question of consecration, the Chapter declared that* "it is desirable to obtain the agreement of Rome to have a bishop" *.”

Another source informs us that “the Pope has approved the consecration of two bishops in the SSPX for the first Sunday after Easter” (April 28).


I sent Eleison Comments #598 to some SSPX priests, since it was addressed to them.

One of them [who is not my own priest], whom I highly esteem, responded with the following lines:

Dear Sean,

Blessed and Merry Christmas to you and your family.

It seems to me that His Excellency is locked into seeing what he sees – all that happens is seen in the light of where he has already decided things are at, and no evidence that things might be otherwise is accepted. I would venture, furthermore, that he has long had this tendency…

Of course His Excellency is convinced that any contact with Rome is, at the very least, delusionary. That is not his decision to make, however, and never has been; it is a prudential matter, and falls to the Superior General.

Beyond that, does His Excellency really think that priests of the Society are all about action, and have no concern for doctrine? Just because we don’t rail against the Novus Ordo every time we speak from the pulpit does not mean we no longer see the crisis for what it is, or that we have been silenced on this matter (and cowardly submitted)…[The priest then explained that he himself has not spoken any more or less about the crisis than he ever did; it was necessary to edit this part to preserve anonymity]. I did not, because it is all too easy to sit and be satisfied that one is Catholic in his thinking and his life just because he is not where he sees the Novus Ordo Church to be… while all the while he is sliding, sliding, sliding into a Protestant, Liberal way of life and thought. As priests our task is to help our people be Catholic, not merely help our people see that the Novus Ordo is not Catholic.

What does His Excellency look for from the Society superiors? Has he read any of the interviews of our current Superior General, with any real openness? Have you? Are you very much in the same boat as His Excellency: locked into a decided vision of things that will not allow the reality to penetrate? Haven’t you seen enough of the so-called Resistance to recognize that it is born of revolutionary principles that are in fact more Protestant than Catholic?

The following was my response to him [again slightly edited to preserve anonymity]:

Greetings Fr. Xxxxxxxx:

Thank you very much for your response; I was not sure that I would receive one, and am happy you took the time to share your thoughts with me in this matter.

Since I know you have no time to enter into a back and forth, I just wanted to see if you could clarify a couple comments you make in your final paragraph:

  1. You ask if I am “locked into a decided vision of things that will not allow the reality to penetrate?” May I ask what is this “reality” of which you speak? The only reality in the matter of relations with Rome that I am “locked into” is the same one Bishop Fellay made regarding Pope Francis in the April/May 2014 edition of La Rocher #88 (the bulletin of the Swiss District): Speaking of an agreement with Rome, Bishop Fellay responded, “Right now, that would be foolish.”

In that case, it would have been foolish 2 years prior under BXVI, and is even more foolish today, as Francis’s animus dilendi toward Tradition is even more evident.

So again, if you could clarify what precisely you believe is the “reality” which is “not penetrating,” it would help me.

For my part, so far as I can tell, my “vision” of things is precisely that of Archbishop Lefebvre’s, when he said: ‘We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people! If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.’ (Fideliter, July/August, 1989).

  1. “Haven’t you seen enough of the so-called Resistance to recognize that it is born of revolutionary principles that are in fact more Protestant than Catholic?”

Who is the revolutionary: The one who fights to preserve the existing order of things, or the ones who work for its overthrow, and overturn that order?

If I have held to the vision of Archbishop Lefebvre quoted above, but the superiors of the Society have departed from that vision, in favor of its opposite (i.e., striving by all opposite means to convince the clergy and faithful that it is good and even necessary to put oneself into the hands of the modernists), then which of those two positions is the revolutionary one?

Certainly, I understand that circumstances could alter Archbishop Lefebvre’s prudential precondition (i.e., doctrinal agreement before juridical agreement), but as Bishop de Galarreta observed at Albano in 2011 (and contrary to Bishop Fellay’s comments in the Cor Unum in 2012/2013), there has been no change in Rome which could justify the SSPX moving away from Archbishop Lefebvre’s position. In fact, every sane and honest man would see that in 2019, conditions have so deteriorated in Rome (and Rome become even more hostile towards Tradition since that time) that it would be insanity to not see the rank imprudence (and damage to souls and the quality of faith) which will follow upon an agreement.

Conditions today make Archbishop Lefebvre’s warning quoted above all the more pertinent today then when he made it in 1989.

Neither can one pretend that the conditions of the personal prelature will insulate the SSPX from the corrupting influence of modernism: The SSPX will still be dependent upon the diocesan bishops to erect chapels, schools, priories, etc. (and of course anyone with business sense like yourself knows these approvals all come with a price).

Already, the SSPX is promoting the modernist book of Fr. Robinson; a public evolutionist (Mr. Todd Kunkel) is professor at St. Mary’s College; many of the faithful are married by diocesan clergy, to whom they feel no repugnance (contrary to the Marriage Form I signed, which acknowledged my right to receive the sacraments in a fully traditional way, and not by a priest who celebrates the new Mass; etc.).

No, I think I am neither delusional nor revolutionary (regardless of however applicable this may be in [some respects to] the case of Bishop Williamson).

Out of respect for you, I would be most interested to read your response to these thoughts, and will not pester you again with a follow-up response (i.e., I really would like to know how you would respond to these thoughts, and will certainly consider whatever you may write, and promise you will have the last word if you do respond).

God bless you, Fr. Xxxxxxxx

Semper Idem,

Sean Johnson

Tomorrow, it will be two weeks since I sent this email, and I have not yet received a response.


I think that it is rather obvious that the SSPX is dead but not yet buried. In September 2014 Crd. Mueller and Bp.Fellay announced that they agreed to a slow gradual step by step process for the reconciliation of the SSPX wIth Rome, and behold Francis grants recognition of the SSPX ordinations and then grants them confessions and extreme Unction and of course marriages and now he grants them new bishops.This episcopal consecration will be the final nail in the coffin, RIP SSPX.


It has been my experience that these type of accusations against the “Resistance” are from experience with aggressive or combative faithful and not with any particular Priests of the Resistance. Plus each individual has their own perception of what the Resistance is: for some it is Bishop Williamson, others Frs. Pfiffer and Hewko (ant for most the list stops there) but no one refers to the Dominicans, or Fr. Chazal, Fr. Voight, F. Balinni, Fr. McDonald, Fr. Trincardo, the Benedictines in Brazil, Bishop Zendajas, etc. The questions to ask those with negative views of the Resistance, is to ask them "What is the Resistance? Who do you mean as there is no group called the Resistance? How many of the Bishops or Priests of this “Resistance” have you talked to? What has the particular priests done to make you think he has a Protestant attitude or been rebellious, when and what did he do?


Well said, Mark. I agree that those accusations [may?] refer to those faithful of the Resistance who are aggressive or combative. It’s the faithful attached to the Resistance (or those against the Resistance) who tend to give it a bad name, IMO. One need only view the CathInfo forum to see the negative in-fighting among trads, and especially those sedewhatevers who are against the Resistance, though the situation there has improved.

However, there is still an attitude of red-lighting the SSPX chapels that bothers me. I find it troublesome that laymen are telling Resistance trads where (or where they cannot) attend Mass, and in this respect, they are behaving as if they are priests who have jurisdiction over other trads, when in fact they are only laymen. The problem with the Resistance is that laymen have taken over the job of priests, and they are acting like they are priests, especially on CathInfo. Now I will probably be accused by some on this forum of having a cult mentality or that I worship the Resistance bishops or other such nonsense, since I accuse the laymen of the Resistance rather than the priests and bishops.

Actual priests and bishops associated with the Resistance tend to be prudent, for the most part. But they are only human and do make mistakes.

Another possible reason for the negative view of the Resistance by SSPX priests is that they cannot fathom the idea that good trads can go against the leadership of the SSPX, and as such, it will be very difficult to get through to them. It will require great charity in order to get past that.

I like the questions that you posed in your post above, especially the last question regarding what the Resistance priests have done to give the impression that they have a Protestant attitude or that they are rebellious.


Just for the sake of clarity, the comments of my priestly correspondent were not principally directed toward the Resistance faithful, but the clergy (and toward Bishop Williamson in particular).

By “Protestant” or “Liberal,” he was referring to His Excellency’s ideas such as the abolition of hierarchy and authority; the encouragement of independence; the suggestion that congregations and seminaries are passé; I might add, the idea (shared by Bishop Fellay) that Archbishop Lefebvre’s organization of the apostolate is itself passé; etc.

In all these things this priestly correspondent is certainly correct.

Yes, I am aware of all Bishop Williamson’s arguments and defenses, which all have a certain rationalized aire of plausibility behind them, but which are also contradicted not only by the examples of Avrille, the SAJM, MCSPX, Santa Cruz, and even the SSPX itself (the poster boy for authority and hierarchy on steroids, and sustained attraction of priestly vocations in our day), but also by the self-defeating policies of His Excellency which have only served to stunt the growth of the Resistance, and this by conscious admission of the bishop himself, who publicly stated he did not want to start a large Resistance movement, and who then worked actively to prevent it from occurring (eg., telling priests to remain in the SSPX; discouraging vocations; etc).

In all these things, my correspondent is certainly correct.

It was only in his suggestion that the Resistance was revolutionary for resisting the accordist policies of the neo-SSPX that I took issue with.


Thank you for the clarification. I take it, then, that your principle reason for posting the correspondence between yourself and the priest is that you are trying to find support in your campaign against Bishop Williamson? You seem to find encouragement in the SSPX priest who is against +W.

This is one reason (example) of why I think that the laymen attached to the Resistance here in the U.S. will be its downfall. The problem seems to be mainly here, and not in Europe or especially France. I will now be accused of worshipping + W or having a cult mentality. I expect that. The American sedevacantists on CathInfo used to say the same thing.


What incomprehension!

No real point responding further.


It’s fine that you don’t want to respond further. But I hope that you will, one of these days, describe and explain what your ultimate goal is in your campaign against +W.

Are you hoping that he gets booted out of the Resistance? Or are you just hoping that he will change and begin to do things your way?


When the newspapers accused the Archbishop of being rebellious he answered:

Yes, we are dissidents, we are disobedient, we are rebels, yes, to modernism, to communism, to socialism and to all the errors condemned by the popes, of course we are dissidents! That is clear, that’s not difficult [to understand]. 1982 Spiritual Conference in Econe

Today’s SSPX no longer has this sense of dissidence, of disobedience and of rebellion.

But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way. (Matthew 13:25)

We have seen plenty of examples of modernism creeping into the SSPX, but instead of “making courageous and firm decisions” like the Archbishop encouraged us to do in 1988 (Archbishop Lefebvre: Stupefied by the Lack of Resistance), most clergy and laity in the SSPX have settled for a false sense of security, of obedience and of meekness. They would rather seek peace with the revolution than to fight it. They consider themselves too big to fail and have fallen asleep.


Admitting that some criticism of the bishop is justified does not constitute “a campaign”.

I would rather ask: what could be the ultimate goal of the bishop’s campaign against the Resistance? Of his refusal to start a seminary, of his stifling any attempts to organise, of his discouraging vocations, of his refusal to respond to a petition by the faithful, of his promoting bogus visions, etc…


Yes, thanks for the clarification. After re-reading the letter again, I see he specficlay mentins “His Excelency” until he got to this line:

“Haven’t you seen enough of the so-called Resistance to recognize that it is born of revolutionary principles that are in fact more Protestant than Catholic?”

It is interesting the Priest equates the “Resistance” specifically with Bishop Williamson, it would have been better for him to have to continue to say “Bishop Williamson” instead of lumping everyone else at the end. Please tell the Priests to visit with the Domains or the other Bishops, and he will clearly see there is no “revolutionary principles that are in fact more Protestant than Catholic”

On a side note, in case you were not made aware of the good news. Bishop Zendajas announced his (SAJM) long term goals of having a US based seminary, a convent and a regular church building for his chapels. Connecticut has open theirs (with bell tower and seating for 150), Kansas is next on the list.


Well that’s good hearing for once.

I have 4 boys destined for the seminary eventually (2 seem more geared toward the SAJM, and 2 seem more geared toward the Dominicans), so maybe by then…but that’s a long way away.