4th False Resistance Bishop to be Consecrated

M

Martius

Guest
Fourth Bishop
March 11, 2017
Number DIV (504)

Bishops there must be, where souls strive for Heaven.
Try Vienna in Virginia, May eleven!

Ever since the summer of 2012 when the Society of St Pius X decided officially to change course and abandon the doctrine-first stand taken 40 years previously by Archbishop Lefebvre, it has been interesting to watch Providence in action to ensure the Church’s defence. One might have expected a widespread uprising in defence of God’s Truth. Resistance from inside the Society? Existent, but at least up till now, largely silent. And from outside? Existent, but only a scattering of layfolk and a handful of priests, riven by divisions for lack of a recognised authority. Catholics need authority. And that need is so great that even while Truth is draining out of the man-centred Newchurch and the Rome-centred Newsociety, still souls cling to each because of the remains of Papal authority in the former, and of Catholic authority bequeathed to the latter by the Archbishop.

But Truth remains the purpose of Authority and Authority is not the purpose of Truth. Given fallen human nature, Authority is the indispensable defender and guarantee of Truth, but it comes after Truth and not before. Take for example one of Our Lord’s last instructions to Peter before He will leave Peter behind to govern the Church (Lk.XXII, 31–32): “Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you (plural), that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee (singular) that thy faith fail not (Truth); and thou, being once converted (Truth), confirm thy brethren (Authority).” And when on Palm Sunday a few days beforehand the Pharisees had attempted to rebuke Our Lord for the joyful noise being made by His disciples, so necessary is the adoration of God in Truth that Our Lord replied (Lk.XIX, 40): “I say to you that if these shall hold their peace, the stones will cry out.”

In today’s Newchurch, Authority is mixing Conciliar error with Catholic Truth in the engine of the Church, which is like mixing water with gasoline (petrol) in the engine of a motor car – the car is crippled, the Church is crippled. And whereas Archbishop Lefebvre defied that crippling, not least of all but rather above all, by his consecrating of four bishops to maintain a Catholic authority that would protect God’s Truth, his successors at the head of what was once his Society are doing their utmost to submit his protection of Truth to the crippled and crippling Authority of Rome! If these successors seriously think that once they are “inside the official Church” they will be in a position to convert the neo-modernists, they are excessively naive. Already they are holding their fire on Vatican II. Just when do they imagine they will be able to open fire again?

In these quite exceptional circumstances, there must be disciples of Our Lord who tell the Truth – so as to spare the stones the effort! These disciples may not be united as they would be beneath true Authority (always allowing for human weakness). They may be “straitened and cast down,” they may suffer “tribulation and persecution” (cf. II Cor. IV, 8–9), but they must be there for as long as Truth is held in captivity. Will that be a long time? God knows. Many of us expected Him to intervene long ago, but God has a very long fuse. However, intervene He will, if anything at all is still to be saved. Patience.

Meanwhile these disciples need a handful of bishops to ensure a minimal continuation in Truth of episcopal teaching and of the sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders. In 1988 the Archbishop consecrated four of them for the same reason, two for Europe, and one each for North and South America. As of now the “Resistance” has two in Europe and one in South America. There remains a gap in North America. God willing, this coming May 11 Fr. Gerardo Zendejas will be consecrated bishop in the Traditional parish of Fr Ronald Ringrose in Vienna, Virginia, USA. Please pray for the blessing of Almighty God upon the ceremony – and for good weather!

Kyrie eleison.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
M

Martius

Guest
From the old rite of Episcopal Consecration:

The Bishop-elect kneels before the Consecrator and reads the oath. This solemn oath states that the Bishop-elect will obey the Roman pontiff and his successors.
“I., elected to the Church of ., from this hour hence forward will be obedient to Blessed Peter the Apostle, and to the holy Roman Church, and to our Holy Father, Pope N. and to his successors canonically elected. I will assist them to retain and to defend the Roman Papacy without detriment to my order. I shall take care to preserve, to defend, increase and promote the rights, honors, privileges and authority of the holy Roman Church, of our Lord, the Pope, and of his aforesaid successors. I shall observe with all my strength, and shall cause to be observed by others, the rules of the holy Fathers, the Apostolic decrees, ordinances or dispositions, reservations, provisions and mandates. I shall come when called to a Synod, unless prevented by a canonical impediment. I shall make personally the visit ad limina apostolorum every ten years, and I shall render to our Holy Father, Pope N., and to his aforesaid successors an account of my whole pastoral office, and of all things pertaining in any manner whatsoever to the state of my Church, to the discipline of the clergy and the people, and finally to the salvation of the souls which are entrusted to me: and in turn I shall receive humbly the apostolic mandates and execute them as diligently as possible.

But if I shall be detained by legitimate impediment, I shall fulfill all the aforesaid things through a designated delegate having a special mandate for this purpose, a priest of my diocese, or through some other secular or regular priest of known probity and religion, fully informed concerning the above-named things. I shall not sell, nor give, nor mortgage the possessions belonging to my mensa (by mensa is understood the real estate or investments set aside for the proper support of the Bishop), nor shall I enfeoff [sic.] them anew or alienate them in any manner, even with the consent of the chapter of my Church, without consulting the Roman Pontiff. And if through me any such alienation shall occur, I wish, by the very fact, to incur the punishments contained in the constitution published concerning this matter.”
https://www.scribd.com/doc/15442729/Comparison-of-Old-and-New-Consecration-Rites
https://www.scribd.com/doc/15442729/Comparison-of-Old-and-New-Consecration-Rites
Interesting that the venue chosen for Fr. Zendejas' consecration is a semi-sedevacantist chapel: Fr. Ringrose is listed - on a sedevacantist site - as a material-formal sedevacantist; and Fr. McMahon is a straight sedevacantist. Both these priests are the priests for the Vienna, Virginia chapel. The only non-sedevacantist priest there is Fr. Ortiz.
 

Vincent

Well-Known Member
Interesting that the venue chosen for Fr. Zendejas' consecration is a semi-sedevacantist chapel: Fr. Ringrose is listed - on a sedevacantist site - as a material-formal sedevacantist; and Fr. McMahon is a straight sedevacantist. Both these priests are the priests for the Vienna, Virginia chapel. The only non-sedevacantist priest there is Fr. Ortiz.

Well, the false resistance never was much for quality over quantity.

Unlike the old SSPX, where sedevacantists were not allowed within the SSPX and doctrine reigned supreme - within the false resistance there are no such 'barriers'. Trad-ecumenism reigns supreme within that dysfunctional group thus the numbers are more important than the doctrine.

After all, who exactly is going to pay for all those Fr. Zendejas properties? The faithful of course. And when the numbers continue to dwindle to nearly nil (only seven showed up at Bishop Williamson's Oregon confirmations last year) then by necessity, all must be welcomed to make up those financial losses - don'tcha know
 

Scarlet Pimpernel

Active Member
It's an interesting experience to attend Mass where Fr. Zendejas says Mass.
Oh yes, trad-ecumenism for Fr. Zendejas. The people have their separate camps.
Sometimes they tolerate each other the sedevacantists and the non sedevacantists. But sometimes they shake their heads as they walk away from a conversation if it's brought up. When you speak to anyone individually then you hear how deep the animosity is. It's not comfortable.
Fr. Zendejas says to the sedevacantists what they want to hear and to the non-sedevacantists what they want to hear.
To the sedes he says one thing, and they love him for it. To the non sedes he says the sedes are crazy and they think the he's really against sedevacantism.
It's funny how he has them all fooled.
To the group as a whole he will speak as if he's against sedevacantism, but the sede's sit there smug, cause they know he doesn't mean it.
Oh he's got the flim-flam down pat.
 

jbeam

Member
It's an interesting experience to attend Mass where Fr. Zendejas says Mass.
Oh yes, trad-ecumenism for Fr. Zendejas. The people have their separate camps.
Sometimes they tolerate each other the sedevacantists and the non sedevacantists. But sometimes they shake their heads as they walk away from a conversation if it's brought up. When you speak to anyone individually then you hear how deep the animosity is. It's not comfortable.
Fr. Zendejas says to the sedevacantists what they want to hear and to the non-sedevacantists what they want to hear.
To the sedes he says one thing, and they love him for it. To the non sedes he says the sedes are crazy and they think the he's really against sedevacantism.
It's funny how he has them all fooled.
To the group as a whole he will speak as if he's against sedevacantism, but the sede's sit there smug, cause they know he doesn't mean it.
Oh he's got the flim-flam down pat.

Whoa! he should have been a politician rather then a priest. So it's neither black nor white BUT GREY........!
I have my reservations on Fr. Z when he 'took' over some of Fr. Peiffer's circuits.
 

Vincent

Well-Known Member
Exactly jbeam. Fr. Zendejas has them so well trained, they are the classic useful idiots.

The only thing they have in common is that they idolize the man. They act as if Fr. Zendejas is their god. Their loyalty is really something to watch.

Some have rejected Bishop Williamson and his nonsense, but cult followers will always stick by their false idol in the same way celebrity fans idolize their Hollywood stars. The sedevacantists and non-sedevacantists will play in the same sandbox for the right person. Go figure.
 
M

Martius

Guest
And whereas Archbishop Lefebvre defied that crippling, not least of all but rather above all, by his consecrating of four bishops to maintain a Catholic authority

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
One Year after the Consecrations
Interview w/ Fideliter July/August 1989

11: The last year

Question: After a year's ministry of the four new bishops that you chose, has everything unfolded as you wished, according to the directives that you gave them in the letter written almost a year in advance of their consecration?

Archbishop Lefebvre: Up to now, it seems that events are unfolding as we wished. We are striving to act in such a way that we cannot be reproached with the bishops' being given a territorial jurisdiction, in such a way that there is no bishop being attributed to such and such a territory. Of course, it's only normal that a French bishop should go to France, and that a German-speaking bishop should go to Germany, but from time to time, we try to bring about an exchange in order to head off that accusation. Of course, it is normal that in the United States, Bishop Williamson should give the confirmations. But Bishop Fellay went to give confirmations in St. Mary's, Kansas, and so one cannot say that the United States are the domain of Bishop Williamson. Bishop Fellay also went to South Africa which had previously been visited by Bishop Williamson. As for Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, he went to South America and to Zaitzkofen in Germany. So, we are striving to establish this principle, that there is no territorial jurisdiction. The four bishops are there to give ordinations and confirmations, to replace me and to do what I did for several years.

For the rest, it is clearly the district superiors who are given a territory which is theirs and who, as far as they can, go to the help of the souls calling for them. For these souls have the right to have the sacraments and the Truth, the right to be saved.

And, so we go to their help, and it is the appeal of these souls which grants us the right, as foreseen by Canon Law, to minister to them. I think we can then thank the good Lord that everything has turned out so well. The feedback reaching us from the faithful proves that they are satisfied and that our bishops are well received.

No doubt we suffered from the departure of some priests and seminarians. But, that is a little like the pilgrimage of Chartres, which this year split in two, into a traditional and a conservative pilgrimage. We may thank the good Lord for having allowed those who are not completely in agreement with us, who do not completely understand what we are fighting for, to leave us. In this way we are stronger and surer in our actions. Without that we would all the time be mixing with people criticizing us, who do not agree with us, within our own congregations, and that would cause division and disorder.
Funny, for the Archbishop, Authority is never even mentioned as a motivation for the Consecrations of 1988. Neither is having a defined territory as Bishop Williamson is promoting:

In 1988 the Archbishop consecrated four of them for the same reason, two for Europe, and one each for North and South America. As of now the “Resistance” has two in Europe and one in South America. There remains a gap in North America.

In fact, the Archbishop explicitly stated that the bishops having a defined territory WAS NOT the intention or consequence of the Consecrations.

In this and many, many other instances, the apples have fallen very far from the tree. The four bishops consecrated by the Archbishop demonstrate more often how, since his demise, they have no intention of honoring the purpose of the SSPX as it was intended. It is only up to us to observe this and flee from those 'novelties' of, now, all the bishops of 'tradition'.
 
M

Martius

Guest
. And whereas Archbishop Lefebvre defied that crippling, not least of all but rather above all, by his consecrating of four bishops to maintain a Catholic authority that would protect God’s Truth


Archbishop Lefebvre's Letter to the Future Bishops, on the Feast of St. Augustine, August 29, 1987:​

The main purpose of my passing on the episcopacy is that the grace of priestly orders be continued, for the true Sacrifice of the Holy Mass to be continued, and that the grace of the Sacrament of Confirmation be bestowed upon children and upon the faithful who will ask you for it.

I beseech you to remain attached to the See of Peter, to the Roman Church, mother and mistress of all the Churches, in the integral Catholic Faith, expressed in the various creeds of our Catholic Faith, in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, in conformity with what you were taught in your seminary. Remain faithful in the handing down of this faith so that the Kingdom of Our Lord may come.

Finally, I beseech you to remain attached to the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, to remain profoundly united amongst yourselves, in submission to the Society's Superior General, in the Catholic Faith of all time, remembering this word of St. Paul to the Galatians (Ch 1:8,9). "But even if we or an angel from heaven were to teach you a different gospel from the one we have taught you, let him be anathema. As we have said before, now again I say: if anyone teaches you a different gospel from what you have received, let him be anathema." My dear friends, be my consolation in Christ Jesus, remain strong in the Faith, faithful to the true Sacrifice of the Mass, to the true and holy priesthood of Our Lord for the triumph and glory of Jesus in heaven and upon earth, for the salvation of souls, for the salvation of my own soul.

In the hearts of Jesus and Mary I embrace you and bless you. Your father in Christ Jesus,

+ Marcel Lefebvre

http://sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/The-Episocopal-Consecrations.htm

 
M

Martius

Guest
Can anyone find any support for Bishop Williamson's statements that the Archbishop, "consecrating of four bishops to maintain a Catholic authority"?

If this was indeed the case, that the purpose of the episcopal consecrations was to 'maintain a Catholic authority' - then it should be plastered everywhere on the SSPX multiple websites and often repeated by the Archbishop himself - we should be able to find these words everywhere...shouldn't we?

Or perhaps, because, as was so aptly pointed out by Fr. Pfeiffer in his sermons this past weekend (March 11-12th, 2017) the Archbishop never even implied that 'authority' was the reason, even a portion of the reason, for the Episcopal Consecrations of 1988.
 

MonkJona

New Member
Well, he said earlier than then that he had to turn down the agreement and consecrate the Bishops to maintain the Catholic Tradition, that when, he said, Pope John Paul II behaved the way he did at Assissi and said the things he said, that this was when he, Archbishop Lefebvre, knew he had to hold back on joining Rome at that time. And he had, in his conscience, to consecrate the Bishops because he knew he wasn't getting any younger and there was a danger to Holy Tradition; his conscience told him he must consecrate the four Bishops simply to save Catholic Holy Tradition because it was being undermined at Rome and he could not alter his holding aloof -- until such a time as Rome show contrition and repentance about their surrender to modernism, and that they would Return to Holy Tradition.
 
Top