FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Williamson to consecrate a bishop??
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
"Sources" are refusing to deny or confim.

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/01...ishop.html
(01-13-2013, 08:35 PM)Cetil Wrote: [ -> ]"Sources" are refusing to deny or confim.

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/01...ishop.html
Based upon his Eleison Comments, this isn't surprising.
State of emergency, obviously.

Dr. Bombay, thank you for that shot of nostalgia.  I remember being quite fond of that show though not much else about it. 

I was coming onto this thread to complain about Internet rumours, but I am too happy now.  You preemptively derailed my derailment.
The $64,000 question is what does the SSPX do when Pope Benedict excomunicates Williamson?

They would seem to be between a rock and a hard place.

Williamson consecrating new bishops would imply a state of emergency because the 3 SSPX bishops have betrayed the faith. It's unlikely they will defend him. On the other hand they will seem very hypocritical if they attack him.
(01-13-2013, 09:48 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: [ -> ]The $64,000 question is what does the SSPX do when Pope Benedict excomunicates Williamson?

They would seem to be between a rock and a hard place.

Williamson consecrating new bishops would imply a state of emergency because the 3 SSPX bishops have betrayed the faith. It's unlikely they will defend him. On the other hand they will seem very hypocritical if they attack him.

What do you mean?  That Williamson consecrating a bishop would imply that Williamson thinks that neither of the remaining three SSPX bishops would do so, and that in his (Williamson's) mind this equates to a state of emergency?

It might seem odd if any if any of the three remaining bishops criticize Williamson for consecrating a bishop (or more than one-- if it happens) but keep in mind that ABL really only did the consecrations as a last resort.  It was at least five years after the Thuc consecrations.  It is a very serious matter, to consecrate bishops without papal mandate.  Williamson nor any of the other bishops have consecrated any bishops, and they've all been bishops for more than two decades. 

To the topic at hand, it really appears to be only a rumor at this point.  That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if it happened.  In fact, I kind of expect it to.
Three of the bishops consecrated Bishop Rangel in 1991. Guess who didn't participate in that happy little party?

Guess again.  :sneaky:
I suppose-- good point, Doc.
There is no way the SSPX will say this is all fine and dandy. Expect messages that no Catholic should be involved with Williamson's group.

The SSPX does not take kindly to groups that would poach its members.
I don't think +Williamson answers to the SSPX these days.

+Pheiffer

Has a nice ring to it doesn't it ?  :)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5