Msgr. Lefebvre, in his letter to the Pope before the consecrations, explained that he was not satisfied with the one bishop that he was "assured" he would receive. PS: Where in JPII's letter to Msgr Lefebvre does he say that Msgr. Lefebvre needed to "let the Vatican continue to lie to him and outwait him to death"?
Regarding the second point, the Holy Father confirms what I had already indicated to you on his behalf, namely that he is disposed to appoint a member of the [SSPX] as a bishop (in the sense of point II/5.2 of the Protocol), and to accelerate the usual process of nomination, so that the consecration could take place on the closing of the Marian Year, this coming August 15. (Cardinal Ratzinger, Letter to Msgr. Lefebvre on May 30, 1988)That is why we are asking for several bishops chosen from within the Catholic Tradition, and for a majority of the members on the projected Roman Commission for Tradition, in order to protect ourselves against all compromise ... we shall give ourselves the means to carry on the work which Providence has entrusted to us, being assured by His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger's letter of May 30th, that the episcopal consecration is not contrary to the will of the Holy See, since it was granted for August 15th. (Msgr. Lefebvre, Letter to John Paul II on June 2, 1988)
JPII's own Code of Canon Law in black and white exculpates LeFebvre. JPII ignored his own laws.
Those laws were considered and deemed non-applicable before the Decree of Excommunication was issued. The CIC never grants permission for episcopal ordinations against the will of the Roman Pontiff - and indeed it never could, since they are schismatic and contrary to Divine Law.
"The CIC never grants permission for episcopal ordinations against the will of the Roman Pontiff - and indeed it never could, since they are schismatic and contrary to Divine Law."
Isn't this what is happening in the Patriotic Catholic Church in Red China?
Why are they then allowed to use American seminaries?
Have these Chinese bishops been excommunicated?
Where did I say that it was in a letter? What's with the sudden appeal to a form of sola scriptura? LeFebvre spoke openly about the conversations surrounding the protocol agreement and each time he appealed to Ratzinger to give him a date, Ratzinger delayed. LeFebvre moved his consecration date at least four times to appease Rome. After the date was finally set, He supplied multiple lists of names and each time Rome rejected each name. It was obvious that it was just politicking and games.
You can see it in the same letter you cited. Without cherry-picking a paragraph out of context...
"Being radically opposed to this destruction of our Faith and determined to remain within the traditional doctrine and discipline of the Church, especially as far as the formation of priests and the religious life is concerned, we find ourselves in the absolute necessity of having ecclesiastical authorities who embrace our concerns and will help us to protect ourselves against the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi.
That is why we are asking for several bishops chosen from within Catholic Tradition, and for a majority of the members on the projected Roman Commission for Tradition, in order to protect ourselves against all compromise.
***GIVEN THE REFUSAL TO CONSIDER OUR REQUESTS, AND IT BEING EVIDENT THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS RECONCILIATION IS NOT AT ALL THE SAME IN THE EYES OF THE HOLY SEE AS IT IS IN OUR EYES,*** we believe it preferable to wait for times more propitious for the return of Rome to Tradition. That is why we shall give ourselves the means to carry on the work which Providence has entrusted to us, being assured by His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger's letter of May 30th that the episcopal consecration is not contrary to the will of the Holy See, since it was granted for August 15th.
We shall continue to pray for modern Rome, infested with Modernism, to become once more Catholic Rome and to rediscover its two-thousand-year-old tradition. Then the problem of our reconciliation will have no further reason to exist and the Church will experience a new youth.
Be so good, Most Holy Father, as to accept the expression of my most respectful and filially devoted sentiments in Jesus and Mary.
+ Marcel Lefebvre (Msgr. Lefebvre, Letter to John Paul II on June 2, 1988)
JPII's own Code of Canon Law in black and white exculpates LeFebvre. JPII ignored his own laws.
Those laws were considered and deemed non-applicable before the Decree of Excommunication was issued.
That was simply more conniving and muddled argumentation on the part of the Curia. That's like an alcoholic telling someone he can control his drinking. No one can believe that LeFebvre did not think that the Church was in a state of emergency and if JPII does not think so, he is either insane or he is a liar. Pick one, because he certainly isn't clear thinking.
First, it wasn't a decree of excommunication. It was a motu proprio declaring (erroneously) a 'latae sententiae' excommunication. Since JPII was wrong about the schism, since LeFebvre made it clear by words and actions that he believed the Church was in a state of emergency and he was not refusing Papal Primacy.
The CIC never grants permission for episcopal ordinations against the will of the Roman Pontiff - and indeed it never could, since they are schismatic and contrary to Divine Law.
Nobody said that it did grant permission for consecrations. I said it exculpates him. It does mandate a reduction or release from the full punishment due to the nature of the disobedience. So even if LeFebvre disobeyed and consecrated because he was convinced that the Church was in danger, even if he had been in error (and he was not) he still would've not recieved the full punishment. So, no latae sententiae excommunication would occur. It fits perfectly with Divine Law in the same sense that sins are not mortal unless they are subjectively aware of it being a mortal sin and committed purposely. LeFebvre's position is closer to the principle of double-effect. His primary action was to preserve the priesthood and that required consecrations.