The Recusant

An unofficial SSPX newsletter, fighting a guerilla war for the soul of Tradition!


Menzingen has solemnly declared it. The episcopal consecration of Bishop Faure this year on 19th March, has nothing whatever in common with that of 1988. The extremism of the statement is surprising. Also, Menzingen instructed its emergency propagandist, Fr. Alain Lorans, and its resident theologian, Fr. Michel Gleize, with justifying this in DICI (3rd April, 2015)

Like in 1988?

In 1988, a French daily newspaper illustrated its article on the episcopal consecrations with an unusual photograph: some laity eating sausages, after the ceremony, near to Écône. Above, in big letters, the title read: “Le Schism et les saucisses ont été comsommés” (“Schism Accomplished; Sausages Eaten”)

Around the same time, staunch anti-consecration militants who were close to the Fraternity of St. Peter were able to recall, out of everything that the Archbishop said, only two sentences: the one where he used a possible Soviet invasion to justify consecrating of four bishops, and the one where he mentioned the apparition of Quito in Ecuador. For these supporters of compromise with conciliar Rome, the case was closed: Archbishop Lefebvre performed the consecrations for mere human, sensationalist or apparitionist reasons.

With little care for the means employed, DICI places itself, from the word go, on the same level.

The Conjuring Trick

An information service worthy of the name would have laid out honestly the reasons invoked by Bishop Williamson (the consecrator), by Bishop Faure (the new Bishop) and by Dom Tomas Aquinas (the host of the ceremony), before going on to discuss them. DICI prefers to focus on details which could be presented from a wacky angle. The way a vulgar T.V. programme would do.

Some of the words of Bishop Williamson have thus been selected with this in mind. There are some general anecdotes concerning the circumstances of the consecration. But DICI is a great magician: those things become, for its readers, the essential reasons for the consecration. And the Great Magician in Chief, doubtless relieved at reaching the end of his delicate mission, concludes seriously that: “These reasons are in stark contrast with those of 1988.”

Against the rules of adding-up

Never mind the conjuring trick: given the requirements of Menzingen, DICI could hardly have managed without it. But the thing which is at risk of dying, which calls for aid and cries vengeance is arithmetic. For this conclusion openly breaks the rules of addition. For the reasons of Bishop Williamson to be “in stark contrast with those of 1988,” the former would have to be totally different to the latter.

And yet, the necessity which existed in 1988 (for the consecration of the four bishops) and in 1991 (for the consecration of Bishop Rangel) still exists.

Even if Bishop Williamson had no new, additional reason, this ongoing necessity is enough to justify a new consecration as soon as Bishop Williamson feels the need to relieved, assisted or replaced in his episcopal task.

For the consecration of Bishop Faure, Bishop Williamson invoked first of all the reasons of necessity which are still the case since 1988 and 1991, before adding some others. That Menzingen might be displeased with these latter reasons is quite possible. But in any event, they are only added to the previous ones. They do not cancel them, they do not replace them, they do not diminish them, they only strengthen them. Even if they were worthless, the previous reasons remain intact. This is the principle of addition, a robust well-established principle. To this day, no illusionist has managed to evade it. Is DICI really so sure that it is up to the challenge?

And Fr. Gleize?

The highlight of the show is of course provided by Fr. Gleize. Let us do him the justice of saying that he is trying to raise the tone (which is not very difficult). A theologian of quality, he perhaps does not care too much for being used by Menzingen of these funfair rides. It takes all he has to preserve his dignity in the midst of the circus.

He even expresses himself in a way that suggest that he is not entirely aware of the circumstances into which he is being made to intervene, and this slight gap gives his words an air of a situation comedy which is perhaps not entirely involuntary.

But that will be for another time, if God wills.