If the SSPX buys into this it will be an act of apostasy. It seems unlikely but Satan is wily and crafty. He’s clearly afraid of what will happen if the SSPX is excommunicated. May the Virgin of virgins Herself intercede for us!
Important note regarding episcopal consecrations in the traditional rite:
Some have dismissed the threat inherent in assigning +Schneider the principal consecrator, supposing that so long as Fellay and/or de Gallareta assist, validity is certain.
But the primary purpose of having three bishops at episcopal consecrations, since the Council of Nicea, was not to ensure validity, but to demonstrate unity and liceity.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“The part assigned by the Roman Pontifical in its present form to the assistant bishops is, after helping to place the book of the Gospels on the shoulders of the elect, to join the consecrator in laying hands on his head, and in saying over him the words Accipe Spiritum Sanctum. But it is the consecrator alone who, with extended hands, says the Eucharistic prayer, which constitutes the "essential form" of the rite.”
In other words, with only Schneider pronouncing the essential form, would doubt be injected into the July 1 SSPX consecrations (and subsequently, to all future priests they might ordain for the SSPX)? Or does the participation of the other two bishops, despite them not pronouncing the essential form, somehow suffice?
If so, how/why?
Update from subscriber Kev below clarifies the matter:
“The CE is from 1913. Pius XII in his Allocution of 1956, stated:
“We recall, in this connection, what We said in Our Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Consecrationis, November 30, 1944. We there determined that in the consecration of a bishop, the two bishops who accompany the consecrating prelate should have the intention of consecrating the bishop-elect, and that consequently they should perform the exterior actions and pronounce the words by which the power and the grace to be transmitted are signified and given. It does not suffice, then, for them to unite their wills with the will of the principal consecrator and to declare that they make their own his words and his actions. They must, themselves, perform these actions and pronounce the essential words.”
So, whether Pius in his 1944 Constitution changed or clarified the role of the co-consecrators, from thenceforth they pronounce the essential rite.”
The CE is from 1913. Pius XII in his Allocution of 1956, stated:
“We recall, in this connection, what We said in Our Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis
Consecrationis, November 30, 1944. We there determined that in the consecration of a bishop, the two bishops who accompany the consecrating prelate should have the intention of consecrating the bishop-elect, and that consequently they should perform the exterior actions and pronounce the words by which the power and the grace to be transmitted are signified and given. It does not suffice, then, for them to unite their wills with the will of the principal consecrator and to declare that they make their own his words and his actions. They must, themselves, perform these actions and pronounce the essential words.”
So, whether Pius in his 1944 Constitution changed or clarified the role of the co-consecrators, from thenceforth they pronounce the essential rite.
Sean, one more thing...from Churchmouse: There are two laws governing the minister's intention for valid confection of a sacrament.
1) De internis ecclesia non judicat--The Church does not judge the internal intention.
2) The minister must do what the Church does.
Here we have a situation in which two Roman Catholic bishops, +Fellay and + de Galarreta, intentionally assist a novus ordo "bishop" whose consecration is, according to the SSPX theologian Fr. Calderon, most probably valid. The two bishops know that he is a "bishop" of a different Rite, and he may not be a valid bishop.
Is their intention truly to consecrate the candidates? Yes, if they follow the Roman Pontifical. Will they do what the Church does? A consecration of a bishop of the Roman Catholic Rite is done traditionally by three Roman Catholic bishops.
Is there a precedent in which any of the Catholic Rite's consecrations have been augmented by a bishop of another Catholic Rite? For instance: has any Pope delegated a Roman Catholic bishop to assist two Maronite bishops in their consecration of a bishop? Was a Chaldean bishop ever participating in the Roman Rite of Consecration?
If such an event can be proven, then it would be safe to say that it is what the Church does.
Is the novus ordo sect a legitimate Rite of the Catholic Church? If it is not, the question remains, is it what the Church does?
We know from history that after Pope Leo XIII pronounced the Anglican consecrations invalid, the Anglican clergy turned to Old Catholics and Orthodox sects' bishops for help in their consecrations after they added the required words to their ritual. It clearly was not what the Church does.
So, the answer for this particular case of doom would be that such consecrations will be invalid because of the failure to do what the Church does!
Voila! No new bishops for the SSPX and the Universal Church!
"...will declare that the primary consecrating bishop will not be Fellay or de Galarreta, but in this scenario, +Schneider will be made the head of a personal prelature, and perform the SSPX consecrations himself! It will be a “miracle!” Too outlandish?"
---
It would be the end of SSPX. As we witnessed several "near-ends" in the past (like certain protocol in 1988 and Fellay-Ratzinger case in 2012), hopefully Providence will prevent any "last minute" harmful deal.
I am going to throw up. I forced myself to read the entire article to the bitter end. God took care of the Huonderful oil problem. Let us pray that Our Lady will protect the SSPX line of apostolic succession through the episcopate and continue the ordination of true Roman Catholic priests in spite of the follies of Bishop Fellay and Bishop de Galarreta. Fr. Stehlin appears to be in ecstasy--he claims that it would be a sacrilege to conditionally ordain novus ordo presiders. Doubtful sacraments now abound in Poland in SSPX chapels!
This will be the ultimate betrayal. These SSPX priests and bishops carry the indelible mark of the Priesthood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and yet they cannot see what they are doing? Already in the U.S. and in Poland, it appears that every priory is seeded with at least one novus ordo pretender who causes every ciborium to be full of doubtfully consecrated hosts. The destruction is catastrophic! It is diabolical.
I've said it from the beginning: Way too much drama... They are up to something... and it's most likely not good.
Let's face it, their customer base (yes, it's a business for the SSPX) is largely ignorant of Catholicism, and will think it's all great. Few of the customers really care about excommunication because they have all been brainwashed to believe they can be at odds with Peter and remain Catholic. They will think this is just the cherry on top.
The sickos running the SSPX are the same who installed a known homo-pedo over the priests of the USA and put him touch with more children. They are absolutely untrustworthy and should all get the millstone.
If it's Kabuki theater, then they will quickly need to throw in a novena for 'Pope' Leo to authorize the consecrations, which he then will 'miraculously' do. I used to think that Francis would authorize new consecrations and generously offer to perform them himself. ;-)
Under your hypothesis, the plan to invalidate the SSPX bishops would only work, however, if they were to find a way to exclude Bishops de Galarreta and Fellay from the consecrations altogether, since as co-consecrators they would make the consecration valid (even if they are not among the two *principal* co-consecrators), would they not?
How does validity occur when the Primary consecrator is of a different religion , Novus Ordo Synodal Religion, as Archbishop Lefebvre had said himself? Then can "bishop" Mollaly do the job? Even if the 2 SSPX Bishops co-consecrate, would that, in and of itself, invalidate the consecration?
Validity does not, in and of itself, depend on the orthodoxy of the minister. So them being of different religions would have no impact on the validity question, as far as I can tell.
All true. But from the perspective of conciliar Rome, the invalidity of bishops can wait. What matters most for them will be to control and diffuse the remnants of preconciliarism within the SSPX. Rome plays the long game: Baby steps. First get them regularized and accepting of the new rites. From Schneider as the principle consecrator its only another 30 years until the next round of consecrations. The another step.
Not sure, but if he were to be named the head of the personal prelature, and the SSPX be absorbed into it, it would seem natural to make him the primary consecrator. But again, this is all just analytical plausibility at this point. My friend thinks I'm losing sight of the plot with all the talk about imminent excommunications, and thinks this more likely. So I throw it out there just in case. Obviously, if he were to be the only consecrator, it would b a disaster, despite the Te Deums coming from Menzingen.
I pray if this theater comes about, as seems very possible as you write in this article, that more than a few priests jump from the SSPX sinking ship....er ...sunk ship.
If the SSPX buys into this it will be an act of apostasy. It seems unlikely but Satan is wily and crafty. He’s clearly afraid of what will happen if the SSPX is excommunicated. May the Virgin of virgins Herself intercede for us!
This reminds of a mixed marriage where a priest and a protestant minister facilitate the marriage ceremony.
From the very beginning, I held the same opinion that the SSPX would accept a Novus Ordo Bishop for the consecration. It is the most logical step.
Sean,
what are you trying to do, Cause me insomnia?
Thanks for the "heads up".
Important note regarding episcopal consecrations in the traditional rite:
Some have dismissed the threat inherent in assigning +Schneider the principal consecrator, supposing that so long as Fellay and/or de Gallareta assist, validity is certain.
But the primary purpose of having three bishops at episcopal consecrations, since the Council of Nicea, was not to ensure validity, but to demonstrate unity and liceity.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“The part assigned by the Roman Pontifical in its present form to the assistant bishops is, after helping to place the book of the Gospels on the shoulders of the elect, to join the consecrator in laying hands on his head, and in saying over him the words Accipe Spiritum Sanctum. But it is the consecrator alone who, with extended hands, says the Eucharistic prayer, which constitutes the "essential form" of the rite.”
In other words, with only Schneider pronouncing the essential form, would doubt be injected into the July 1 SSPX consecrations (and subsequently, to all future priests they might ordain for the SSPX)? Or does the participation of the other two bishops, despite them not pronouncing the essential form, somehow suffice?
If so, how/why?
Update from subscriber Kev below clarifies the matter:
“The CE is from 1913. Pius XII in his Allocution of 1956, stated:
“We recall, in this connection, what We said in Our Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Consecrationis, November 30, 1944. We there determined that in the consecration of a bishop, the two bishops who accompany the consecrating prelate should have the intention of consecrating the bishop-elect, and that consequently they should perform the exterior actions and pronounce the words by which the power and the grace to be transmitted are signified and given. It does not suffice, then, for them to unite their wills with the will of the principal consecrator and to declare that they make their own his words and his actions. They must, themselves, perform these actions and pronounce the essential words.”
So, whether Pius in his 1944 Constitution changed or clarified the role of the co-consecrators, from thenceforth they pronounce the essential rite.”
The CE is from 1913. Pius XII in his Allocution of 1956, stated:
“We recall, in this connection, what We said in Our Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis
Consecrationis, November 30, 1944. We there determined that in the consecration of a bishop, the two bishops who accompany the consecrating prelate should have the intention of consecrating the bishop-elect, and that consequently they should perform the exterior actions and pronounce the words by which the power and the grace to be transmitted are signified and given. It does not suffice, then, for them to unite their wills with the will of the principal consecrator and to declare that they make their own his words and his actions. They must, themselves, perform these actions and pronounce the essential words.”
So, whether Pius in his 1944 Constitution changed or clarified the role of the co-consecrators, from thenceforth they pronounce the essential rite.
Outstanding comment, Kev!
One less thing to worry about.
Sean, one more thing...from Churchmouse: There are two laws governing the minister's intention for valid confection of a sacrament.
1) De internis ecclesia non judicat--The Church does not judge the internal intention.
2) The minister must do what the Church does.
Here we have a situation in which two Roman Catholic bishops, +Fellay and + de Galarreta, intentionally assist a novus ordo "bishop" whose consecration is, according to the SSPX theologian Fr. Calderon, most probably valid. The two bishops know that he is a "bishop" of a different Rite, and he may not be a valid bishop.
Is their intention truly to consecrate the candidates? Yes, if they follow the Roman Pontifical. Will they do what the Church does? A consecration of a bishop of the Roman Catholic Rite is done traditionally by three Roman Catholic bishops.
Is there a precedent in which any of the Catholic Rite's consecrations have been augmented by a bishop of another Catholic Rite? For instance: has any Pope delegated a Roman Catholic bishop to assist two Maronite bishops in their consecration of a bishop? Was a Chaldean bishop ever participating in the Roman Rite of Consecration?
If such an event can be proven, then it would be safe to say that it is what the Church does.
Is the novus ordo sect a legitimate Rite of the Catholic Church? If it is not, the question remains, is it what the Church does?
We know from history that after Pope Leo XIII pronounced the Anglican consecrations invalid, the Anglican clergy turned to Old Catholics and Orthodox sects' bishops for help in their consecrations after they added the required words to their ritual. It clearly was not what the Church does.
So, the answer for this particular case of doom would be that such consecrations will be invalid because of the failure to do what the Church does!
Voila! No new bishops for the SSPX and the Universal Church!
"...will declare that the primary consecrating bishop will not be Fellay or de Galarreta, but in this scenario, +Schneider will be made the head of a personal prelature, and perform the SSPX consecrations himself! It will be a “miracle!” Too outlandish?"
---
It would be the end of SSPX. As we witnessed several "near-ends" in the past (like certain protocol in 1988 and Fellay-Ratzinger case in 2012), hopefully Providence will prevent any "last minute" harmful deal.
I am going to throw up. I forced myself to read the entire article to the bitter end. God took care of the Huonderful oil problem. Let us pray that Our Lady will protect the SSPX line of apostolic succession through the episcopate and continue the ordination of true Roman Catholic priests in spite of the follies of Bishop Fellay and Bishop de Galarreta. Fr. Stehlin appears to be in ecstasy--he claims that it would be a sacrilege to conditionally ordain novus ordo presiders. Doubtful sacraments now abound in Poland in SSPX chapels!
This will be the ultimate betrayal. These SSPX priests and bishops carry the indelible mark of the Priesthood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and yet they cannot see what they are doing? Already in the U.S. and in Poland, it appears that every priory is seeded with at least one novus ordo pretender who causes every ciborium to be full of doubtfully consecrated hosts. The destruction is catastrophic! It is diabolical.
I've said it from the beginning: Way too much drama... They are up to something... and it's most likely not good.
Let's face it, their customer base (yes, it's a business for the SSPX) is largely ignorant of Catholicism, and will think it's all great. Few of the customers really care about excommunication because they have all been brainwashed to believe they can be at odds with Peter and remain Catholic. They will think this is just the cherry on top.
The sickos running the SSPX are the same who installed a known homo-pedo over the priests of the USA and put him touch with more children. They are absolutely untrustworthy and should all get the millstone.
If it's Kabuki theater, then they will quickly need to throw in a novena for 'Pope' Leo to authorize the consecrations, which he then will 'miraculously' do. I used to think that Francis would authorize new consecrations and generously offer to perform them himself. ;-)
Under your hypothesis, the plan to invalidate the SSPX bishops would only work, however, if they were to find a way to exclude Bishops de Galarreta and Fellay from the consecrations altogether, since as co-consecrators they would make the consecration valid (even if they are not among the two *principal* co-consecrators), would they not?
How does validity occur when the Primary consecrator is of a different religion , Novus Ordo Synodal Religion, as Archbishop Lefebvre had said himself? Then can "bishop" Mollaly do the job? Even if the 2 SSPX Bishops co-consecrate, would that, in and of itself, invalidate the consecration?
Validity does not, in and of itself, depend on the orthodoxy of the minister. So them being of different religions would have no impact on the validity question, as far as I can tell.
All true. But from the perspective of conciliar Rome, the invalidity of bishops can wait. What matters most for them will be to control and diffuse the remnants of preconciliarism within the SSPX. Rome plays the long game: Baby steps. First get them regularized and accepting of the new rites. From Schneider as the principle consecrator its only another 30 years until the next round of consecrations. The another step.
Primary or only consecrator?
Not sure, but if he were to be named the head of the personal prelature, and the SSPX be absorbed into it, it would seem natural to make him the primary consecrator. But again, this is all just analytical plausibility at this point. My friend thinks I'm losing sight of the plot with all the talk about imminent excommunications, and thinks this more likely. So I throw it out there just in case. Obviously, if he were to be the only consecrator, it would b a disaster, despite the Te Deums coming from Menzingen.
Thank you for the quick response? Pax et bonum +
This seems, sadly, all too plausible.
💯
I pray if this theater comes about, as seems very possible as you write in this article, that more than a few priests jump from the SSPX sinking ship....er ...sunk ship.
Was +Schneider ordained and consecrated in the traditional rite?
No! He was ordained in 1990 and consecrated in 2006.
Oy!
Oh Lord have mercy...