(1) The word of the Pope in judgment, which by itself is sufficient.
This plainly meant that they did not recognize those men as true Catholics. All these traditions dictate that whoever the Roman Pontiff judges to be a schismatic for not expressly admitting and reverencing his power must stop calling himself Catholic. (Bl. Pius IX, Quartus Supra, §9)
(2) The argument used by the Pope, which is quite clear and compelling.
In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act. ("Ecclesia Dei", §2)
(3) The testimony of traditional Catholic belief on the matter; to give just two examples:
For the right of ordaining bishops-belongs only to the Apostolic See, as the Council of Trent declares; it cannot be assumed by any bishop or metropolitan without obliging Us to declare schismatic both those who ordain and those who are ordained, thus invalidating their future actions. (Pius VI, Charitas, §10)
After the Ascension St. Peter and his successors take the place of Christ as visible head of the Apostolic body, with full authority to carry out His will: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven."6 Consequently the Roman Pontiff, as sucessor of St. Peter, has sole authority to accept new members into the Apostolic Body, i. e., he alone has authority to constitute bishops, since authority to teach and govern the faithful was conferred upon the Apostles as a body and can be obtained only by incorporation into that body.The very nature of episcopal office and of the primacy proves that the Roman Pontiff has exclusive authority to constitute bishops for every part of the Church. Bishops are shepherds for portions of the flock that was committed in its entirety to the pastoral care of St. Peter and his successors; but no one becomes a shepherd of any portion of a flock unless he be made such by the chief pastor of the whole flock. It is also evident that the chief purpose of the primacy,-the preservation of unity,-could not be realized if the bishops of the Church were not subject in all things to her supreme pastor.
The authority of the Roman Pontiff to constitute bishops for all parts of the Church may be exercised directly by personal appointments, or indirectly by delegating others ...
6 Matt. xvi, 19. (E. Berry, D.D., The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, St. Louis: Herder, 1927. p. 408-9)
regarding consecrating bishops without papal permission:
"Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act"
"Implies rejection of the Roman primacy"
Certainly such an act can mean that. "I am consecrating bishops without permission because the Bishop of Rome in fact has no authority over me." I don't think the Archbishop ever expressed those sentiments, which would accurately describe the "bona fide" schismatics, if you will, the Orthodox.
the word "implies" suggests a crack in the door if anyone cares to have hope.
(1) The word of the Pope in judgment, which by itself is sufficient.
This plainly meant that they did not recognize those men as true Catholics. All these traditions dictate that whoever the Roman Pontiff judges to be a schismatic for not expressly admitting and reverencing his power must stop calling himself Catholic. (Bl. Pius IX, Quartus Supra, §9)
Well that certainly does not apply to the SSPX who are insisting that the Popes clear up the issues dividing the Church with Supreme power and clear defined ex-Cathedra statements.
(2) The argument used by the Pope, which is quite clear and compelling.
I beg to differ. The argument was vague and dubious. Disobedience doesn't "imply" anything JPII simply inferred it where there was no reason to and basically sat in judgment of a man's interior disposition against his explicit statements to the contrary.
In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act. ("Ecclesia Dei", §2)
(3) The testimony of traditional Catholic belief on the matter; to give just two examples:
For the right of ordaining bishops-belongs only to the Apostolic See, as the Council of Trent declares; it cannot be assumed by any bishop or metropolitan without obliging Us to declare schismatic both those who ordain and those who are ordained, thus invalidating their future actions. (Pius VI, Charitas, §10)
The context of the encyclical indicates that the schismatic act is the taking of the secular oath which denies papal authority. Not the disobedience of LeFebvre which had the tacit approval of JPII if not his veiled intentions to never give LeFebvre and the Society a bishop.
After the Ascension St. Peter .. since authority to teach and govern the faithful was conferred upon the Apostles as a body and can be obtained only by incorporation into that body. The very nature of episcopal office and of the primacy proves that the Roman Pontiff has exclusive authority to constitute bishops for every part of the Church. Bishops are shepherds for portions of the flock that was committed in its entirety to the pastoral care of St. Peter and his successors; but no one becomes a shepherd of any portion of a flock unless he be made such by the chief pastor of the whole flock. It is also evident that the chief purpose of the primacy,-the preservation of unity,-could not be realized if the bishops of the Church were not subject in all things to her supreme pastor. The authority of the Roman Pontiff to constitute bishops for all parts of the Church may be exercised directly by personal appointments, or indirectly by delegating others ... 6 Matt. xvi, 19. (E. Berry, D.D., The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, St. Louis: Herder, 1927. p. 408-9)
The key to the difference between these teachings and the much different situation with the SSPX is over the issue of jurisdiction. The SSPX were not granted jurisdiction by LeFebvre (it wasn't his to grant and if he tried that truly would have been a schismatic act) The bishops as bishops have no authority over anyone.