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.