Soon-to-be Bishop Christian Bouchacourt of the SSPX?
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    https://novusordowatch.org/2019/03/williamson-two-new-sspx-bishops/

    Bishop Williamson has announced in his Quinquagesima Sunday sermon that the SSPX has a mandate from Pope Francis for Bishop Vitus Huonder of Switzerland to consecrate two bishops for the SSPX on April 28. One of the candidates is Father Christian Bouchacourt, the current District Superior of France. This harkens back to several discussions we had on the forum about the friendship between Pope Francis and Fr. Bouchacourt when Fr. Bouchacourt was District Superior in South America.

    Fr. Bouchacourt is also the young celebrant in the iconic YouTube video series of the traditional High Mass at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet which has also been discussed on this forum many times.

    If true, this is indeed cause for rejoicing!
    Thanked by 3chonak CHGiffen irishtenor
  • madorganist
    Posts: 906
    But wasn't Bp. Huonder ordained (1971) and consecrated (2007) in the new rite? Will bishops consecrated by a bishop who wasn't himself consecrated in the old rite be accepted by the SSPX faithful? Will two of the SSPX bishops be co-consecrators? Interesting development, but so many questions!
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Good questions! As far as the new rite of consecration, Pope Francis was made a bishop with that rite as well, so it depends on how far you want to go with it. : )

    In other words, if the new rite is invalid, how do you know the old rite wasn't--- since it's the authority of the Church which attests to the validity of the rite? It's also the authority of the Church which now gives the SSPX jurisdiction to hear confessions and fix marriages. The SSPX faithful should realize that if they push this issue too far, it will erode the validity of what the SSPX is now doing in regards to the sacraments.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Lol... the conundrum continues to play out
    Thanked by 2a_f_hawkins JulieColl
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,371
    Presumably Bp Williamson is hoping this will cause more splinters to come off SSPX for him to gather under his wing, or is he trying to forestall it by premature publicity?
  • Dixit_Dominus_44
    Posts: 181
    Some key phrases from the article you linked:

    His Excellency states that “it’s hearsay for the moment but it’s pretty darn certain” that the Novus Ordo bishop Huonder will consecrate “two bishops for the Society”…


    and

    Although not stated by Williamson, the clear implication is that Francis would give his “papal” mandate for the consecration…


    I'm not sure what needs to be said about this anonymous organization, except to quote from their (his?) charter:

    Novus Ordo Watch is a lay-led internet apostolate whose primary goal is to educate the public about the true Roman Catholic religion and the institution we refer to as the “Novus Ordo Sect” (or “Vatican II Sect”), a Neo-Modernist sect which falsely claims to be the Roman Catholic Church and has illegitimately occupied the official Catholic structures in the Vatican and throughout the world since its de facto founding by Cardinal Angelo Roncalli after the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958.


    Julie, I think you may have inadvertently discovered a website even more obsessed with Pope Francis than Rorate Caeli (!) … [and not in a good way.] Those people go to bed thinking about him and wake up the next morning thinking about him—and spend all day writing about him. Very unhealthy, anything but traditional.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,157
    Yes, disregard all the rhetoric expressing the *viewpoint* of the writers. The fact that they and Williamson hold various erroneous opinions does not imply anything about the accuracy of the information they claim to report. They probably do have well-informed contacts in various parts of the traditionalist movement. And even if Williamson is engaging in mere speculation, it's rather plausible speculation.
    Thanked by 2madorganist JulieColl
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Dixit Dominus, I linked to that website because it was the only place that had the video of Bishop Williamson's sermon. I thought having the Bishop's exact words was the key thing. Now I see Gloria TV has the video. Thank you for the caveat.

    BTW, Bishop Huonder of Chur, Switzerland, is living in retirement with the SSPX, with apparent papal approval. https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2019/01/papally-approved-unexpectedly-new.html
  • StimsonInRehabStimsonInRehab
    Posts: 1,916
    According to Bishop Williamson,, this proposed living arrangement has fallen through. I don’t know whether to be relieved or not.
  • EtienneDebaecker
    Posts: 34
    My understanding of SSPX is that they do not consider the new rite of consecration as invalid. If so, they would consider Pope Francis not being the pope and by the way they would chose sedevacantism.
    Ergo :-) they can accept that a bishop consecrated in the new rite be the consecrator under the condition that the consecration is done in the old rite.
    Having bishops from the SSPX as co-consecrators should not make any problem, as the Vatican recognizes their validity and the excommunication has been lifted.
  • madorganist
    Posts: 906
    My understanding of SSPX is that they do not consider the new rite of consecration as invalid. If so, they would consider Pope Francis not being the pope and by the way they would chose sedevacantism.
    Ergo :-)
    Your first sentence is correct. The second is not. Any Catholic man (or boy!) can be validly elected Pope, whether ordained or not. Non sequitur.
    Thanked by 1AndrewSteinerPiano
  • EtienneDebaecker
    Posts: 34
    Yes, provided he is a confirmed male bachelor (and maybe over 21, not sure to remember this ???)... But then, he has to be ordained, consecrated and sacred, as he is Pope because he is Rome s bishop. One paradox is, a cardinal may not necessarily be a priest (at least according to canonic laws), but a bishop has to be. Therefrom my second sentence !
  • AndrewSteinerPiano
    Posts: 62
    There is no age limit. Any Catholic male above the age of Reason.

    A Bishop is a priest because he has the fullness of Holy Orders. Any male can be consecrated a bishop without being a priest beforehand; however, the Church shies away from doing this out of respect for the Sacrament. The normal order is: Porter, Reader, Exorcist, Acolyte, Subdeacon, Deacon, and Priest, then Bishop as the final step.
    Thanked by 2madorganist irishtenor
  • madorganist
    Posts: 906
    There is also no requirement that the man elected Pope be a "confirmed bachelor." The first Pope is believed to have been a widower, as scripture mentions his mother-in-law. I think I've read that the Pope has jurisdiction from the moment he's elected, even if he has not yet been consecrated as a bishop, but I don't have a reference handy. The SSPX is not, and never has been, sedevacantist.
    Thanked by 3StimsonInRehab mmeladirectress irishtenor
  • madorganist
    Posts: 906
    One paradox is, a cardinal may not necessarily be a priest (at least according to canonic laws), but a bishop has to be.
    Historically there were lay cardinals, but that is no longer the case. Since the 1917 Code of Canon Law, only priests and bishops may be appointed as cardinals.
  • EtienneDebaecker
    Posts: 34
    And, Madorganist, I fully agree that the SSPX is not sedevacantist.
  • mmeladirectress
    Posts: 1,075
    Posted March 8 2019 >> BTW, Bishop Huonder of Chur, Switzerland, is living in retirement with the SSPX, with apparent papal approval. https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2019/01/papally-approved-unexpectedly-new.html

    Posted April 6, 2019 >> According to Bishop Williamson,, this proposed living arrangement has fallen through. I don’t know whether to be relieved or not.

    May 22 2019 press release https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/diocese-chur-switzerland-bishop-huonder-replaced-administrator-48004
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    I'm missing something.
    Bishop Williamson was dismissed from the Society of St Pius X, so how can it be that he's responsible in any way as a spokesman for that group?
  • mmeladirectress
    Posts: 1,075
    I wondered about that too. For a friend, I looked for an update since March, and thought i’d share what I found.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,371
    So there is this from May 20, showing that Williamson was mistaken - https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/joint-communique-47934 .
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 2,046
    The normal order is: Porter, Reader, Exorcist, Acolyte, Subdeacon, Deacon, and Priest, then Bishop as the final step.


    ...for historical values of "normal". The Minor Orders were abolished by Pope Paul VI. Which is why the suggestion in the final document of the Amazon Synod that they be partly revived to sneak women into the priesthood is so...amusing??
    Thanked by 1CatherineS
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    I think it is interesting that beyond the reader, the next minor order is (was) exorcist... pretty low on the totem pole to deal with the agents of hell... lol
    Thanked by 1a_f_hawkins
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Francis,


    Think of it differently. One doesn't often send a rookie exorcist in, so between his receiving this minor order and his ordination, he has time to mature naturally, and the graces have the chance to grow even stronger.
  • CatherineS
    Posts: 690
    Maybe those wanting to ordain women could start with women exorcists...
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,371
    I think the order of exorcist was confined to Minor Exorcisms, which are part of preparation for Baptism. These prayers can now be used by catechists, including women catechists. It seems to me likely that as deaconesses in the early church were involved in Baptism, they could also use these prayers.
Add a Comment