Insane Rashness

INSANE RASHNESS

from Syllabus

translated by Michael Fuller

"Why should the poor be flatter'd

No, let the candied tongue lick absurb pomp,

And crook the pregnant hinges of the knee

Where thrift may follow fawning."

(William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Scene II, Act III)

The new statement from Menzingen regarding the episcopal consecration of Bishop Faure intends to convince the faithful of the SSPX that while the episcopal consecrations of 1988 were an act of prudence, the 2015 consecration was an act of imprudence, that the ones in '88 were reflected upon and that this one was rash, that the ones in '88 were a mature act and this one was an impulsive act, that the consecrations of '88 were based on certainties and that the 2015 one was based on doubts. In short, that the '88 consecrations were justified and the 2015 one is not.

Finally, the argument put forward is misapplied and falsely, because there is a double standard: the consecrations of 1988 are judged in respect to Rome, and the consecration of 2015 is judged in respect to the SSPX itself.  The '88 consecrations were favorable to the SSPX and therefore also to the Church.  The 2015 one is "contrary" to the SSPX and therefore contrary to the Church.  The inconsistency of the argument of Menzingen is remarkable, as indicated in the article of Non Possumus about it.

Menzingen acts contradictorily. Consider this: if in 1988 it had been necessary because of the disastrous situation of the Church caused by its destructive modernist authorities, the reality of the Church in 2015, far from having improved, is notoriously worse.  Therefore, the state of necessity has not ceased to exist. The Neo-SSPX itself admits that there is a necessity in its first statement against the recent consecration, otherwise it would not be able to justify its operating outside of the conciliar Roman structure.

But, if the state of necessity persists in the Church, why then cannot new entirely Catholic bishops be consecrated?  Ah, Menzingen's response is: because it is we who represent Tradition and secure it on the bounds of the state of necessity. In 1988, the Church had only two integrally Catholic senior bishops (Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop De Castro Mayer), the Church today has three integrally Catholic non-senior bishops (Bishop Fellay, Bishop De Galarreta and Bishop Tissier).  This could be the final argument of Menzingen.  Now, assuming that the bishops of the Society were not inclined towards liberalism and seeking an agreement with Rome, even if they were entirely and perfectly Catholic, would this be enough for the situation of the catastrophic crisis that exists today?  If the answer is yes, then we are saying that things are better today than then, because in 1991 the SSPX bishops also performed an episcopal consecration. [The reference is made to the consecration of the late Bishop Rangel. See the Archbishop's comments on this consecration here. ]  If the answer is no, then the recent episcopal consecration is completely justified.

If, as has been seen, the current three bishops of the SSPX are lukewarm, then things become more obscured.

But doesn't the resignation of Benedict, the pontificate of Francis, and the recent synod of the family, among other things, prove that things are getting worse and worse? And all the commotion to be heard about war, conflicts that threaten to tear the West to pieces, mass persecution of Christians in the world, the growth of diabolic impiety and idolatry, does all of this not matter?  So if the SSPX believed it was necessary to consecrate a bishop in 1991 (and then there were five), in 2015, when things suddenly got worse, why does it seems unnecessary to consecrate bishops and to be sufficient with three?

In addition, if Menzingen wanted the good of the Catholic Church, why then does it bother them that there are more Catholic bishops?  Shouldn't it be a cause for joy?  Ah no, for the Neo-SSPX, the two bishops of the Resistance are "sedevacantists" and therefore probably "schismatics".  Of course, with that it intended to maintain a nice "image" for Rome.

If there is a state of necessity, such a state demands measures with the purposes of supplying what the authorities do not give in order to save souls.  Why should such a state of necessity not allow the consecration of Catholic bishops but allow the action of the SSPX?  Then is the state of necessity mitigated? Nevertheless, the communiqué from DICI itself says: In a letter dated July 8,1987, Archbishop Lefebvre wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger: "the permanent will to annihilate Tradition is a suicidal will, which justifies, by its very existence, true and faithful Catholics when they make the decisions necessary for the survival of the Church and salvation of souls." And he also says that" every bishop is obliged to exercise his episcopate with a view to the salvation of souls and the common good of the Church, which may involve the transmission of the priesthood and the episcopate, even if the supreme authority of the Church were to oppose it unjustly." This being so, we ask again: why does Menzingen condemn this new episcopal consecration?

Their answer is: this measure was not necessary "for the survival and salvation of souls".  But then, this would mean that it is not as Archbishop Lefebvre said that there is "a permanent will to annihilate Tradition, a suicidal will" which justifies extreme measures.  Without saying so, Menzingen is saying that it is no longer like that, otherwise it should not criticize the episcopal consecration.  In no way until the present date has there been a clear justification of their condemnation, but it has been based on the "sedevacantism" that would be the result of a "schismatic spirit" of Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure. That's right: without a shred of proof.

Moreover, in this second communiqué dedicated to the faithful of the SSPX, without a hint of criticism of the current Roman authorities, Menzingen suggests that it is the SSPX who gives the means of salvation, and therefore it is the SSPX who ensures the continuity of Tradition.

But here we find another contradiction. The SSPX has spread its charitable and apostolic intentions on many occasions, for example when they agreed to the lifting of the excommunications which it considered invalid, with the intention that more people would be able to approach their chapels and obtain the mass and Catholic sacraments.  Now if the SSPX accepted such inconsistent measures -which contradicted its longtime position and confused many- based on expanding the scope of the means of salvation for many more faithful, why not now accept a consecration which will result in expanding the Catholic apostolate and spiritual goods of the Church for more faithful?  Ah, no, says the Neo-SSPX, what is going on is that the resistance does not recognize Rome. It is sedevacantist.  The funny thing is that all the sedevacantists in the world furiously criticize the two bishops of the Resistance for not being sedevacantists.  Does the Resistance teach heretical doctrines?  No.  Does it intend to form a new church? No.  It only does what Archbishop Lefebvre did: distinguish between eternal Rome and the modernist Rome which opposes the former and to continue the fight for the faith.  But according to Menzingen it is sedevacantist.  What is their basis for claiming this? Nothing.  This is where the Menzingen argument goes and it shows nothing.  Then the accusation of sedevacantism now adds a new argument, also subjective: that of an "insane rashness" of Bishop Williamson to perform the consecration.  It seems that one morning he woke up wanting to make some noise and then decided to consecrate Father Faure.  Perhaps in a future communiqué they will accuse Bishop Williamson of being a neo-Nazi?

But let's take a look. Bishop Williamson has always spoken clearly and realistically concerning both the crisis in the Church and the crisis and dangers within the SSPX. Already in an interview in 2007 he states he is willing to consecrate bishops if necessary.  And his words were not cheap, pour la galerie. Here is an excerpt from that interview:

(Vatican II is a poisoned cake. Interview of January 12, 2007 with Le Rivarol . Reproduced in the magazine Tradición Católica N ° 210)

 Where do you see the Catholic Church in twenty or thirty years?                                           The New World Order, which accounts for the delicate apostasy in the Church, is advancing by        leaps and bounds.  But the Church is indestructible.  Therefore, one of two things will occur: in  either five, ten or twenty years God will intervene with an exemplary chastisement to restore order,  or the Church will be groaning in the catacombs waiting for this intervention.  However, the current  situation is irrecoverable through purely human effort.

If the crisis is extended, will you be willing to consecrate bishops without a papal mandate?Yes. But I hope not without the prudence required by the many circumstances.

 Concerning your own episcopate, do you consider yourself a member of the teaching  Church and the apostolic college?
 I'm not part of the conciliar teaching Church nor the conciliar apostolic college, but on the other  hand I am part of the teaching Catholic Church and the apostolic college. Conversely, the conciliar  diocesan bishops form a poisoned cake block, although not in all its parts.

We see then that Bishop Williamson is simply a consistent bishop with his words, understanding that the extreme circumstances justified it, and after a long deliberation, he performed the episcopal consecration of Bishop Faure. Therefore the charge of performing an act by surprise and thoughtlessly without reflection, without the required prudence is insupportable.

But perhaps one must look for another key-point of the cause of this whole series of statements from the Neo-SSPX condemning the episcopal consecration of Bishop Faure.  Why this persistent criticism from Menzingen?

The answer lies in the statement of the communiqué that the Resistance has the "need to replace the SSPX". Here we believe that the crux of the matter appears.  It is undoubtedly the institutional pride that comes out to maintain their victorious image, their reputation as a "champion of Tradition", first to Rome and then to their own members and supporters. First, to make them realize that the SSPX is not schismatic or sedevacantist or like resistant rebels who no longer have any relationship or link. Second, to make their faithful realize that the SSPX is still the same as ever, providing them with the Mass of all times and opposing the modernist errors of Rome. In the first communiqué they are lying completely. In the second communiqué they are lying partially.

The Neo-SSPX feels like Esau, who lost his birthright of Tradition for a mess of pottage... promised by Rome.

The Neo-SSPX is in great distress. On one side it fears returning again to be stigmatized if they are put "in the same category" of those that resist, thus moving away from the possibility of being recognized by Rome. On another, it fears that the Catholic fundamentalism of the Resistance will provoke some hint of dissent in its own ranks. It is clear that what has occurred has given more evidence of the traitors in Menzingen so that each time they may publicly be discovered as to what they are.

With all this it seems that there is not love of the Truth and love for the Church in Menzingen, but only love for itself. So like a tramp, they go about seeking approval, first in Rome, then from their faithful. Bought like a politician on the campaign trail, with a smile and a speech according to their listener. Not being enough to persecute the anti-liberal when they were within their ranks, they continue such persecution and condemn them when they are outside their ranks, joining with the conciliar church that it claims to not be a part of.

With "insane rashness" Menzingen released its communiqué condemning the episcopal consecration on the same day (even before Rome!), But not because it would lead to a "simple doubt", but rather, because they feared being associated publicly with such an act, which they know could complicate their "full reconciliation" with Rome. The statement of condemnation has been the worst mistake Menzingen has made, because it is precisely what ends up eliminating all the doubts that there may be hitherto of their intention to please Rome.

There will not be a signed paper with a Vatican letterhead, but the spirit of the Neo-SSPX already belongs to modernist Rome.