Lefebvre wanted traditionalist candidates for consecration who would not buckle under pressure by Rome as soon as he himself passed from the scene. He time and again tried to deal with Ratzinger on the up and up, asking over and over when he could expect the Pope to cite a date for a consecration. No date was ever given. He finally saw through the ruse and told Rome no deal.
As for your statement that "the Pope is still willing to allow the Society to return to the Church without having to disavow its errors"--I ask you--what errors? The errors are on Rome's part, not the Society's. It is Rome which refuses to discuss doctrines and principles, that demands blind obedience to its unCatholic, untraditional novelties that offend against the faith.
As for your notion that the bishops consecrated are not Catholic, that is an absurdity nobody else believes, not even Rome. They are themselves validly ordained and their ordinations of priests are valid. Not only this, but they represent the vanguard of true Catholicism--at a time when Rome herself is of doubtful Catholicity.
Even the Pope makes himself beside the point in the current struggle between faith and apostasy--since he proves himself opposed to Tradition--though he is himself only a servant to it and only holds supreme power expressly to defend and guard that tradition--not to invent a new religion. The faith, in other words, comes first. The Pope must either defend it, or step aside and let others do what he will not do.
DOM GERARD: No, it is valid. Obviously Holy Church would not have given us an heretical Mass. But this rite is inadequate in expressing the real Presence manifest on the altar, the sacrifice of Christ, the divine majesty. We are attached to the Mass that Pius V formulated because, as the act of promulgation says, "we know that this Mass is the perfect expression of the faith of the Church".But remember too, that the Mass celebrated today is not the one Paul VI wanted and the one Conciliar Fathers approved. The problems of the Church in these past few decades have not been caused by the Council. The problems are the result of a bad interpretation of its texts which are still misunderstood today. The Mass the Council produced is the 1965 one which safeguarded the crux of traditional liturgy. With the use of the vulgate and by means of a few other modifications the Mass was given a more modern tone but all its effectiveness was restored.
However, in 1969 a completely new Mass was produced. The principal person behind this sweeping initiative that prevailed over the wishes of Conciliar Fathers was Msgr Bugnini who described this Mass explicitly as "a new creation". He said it was "evolutionary" to the extent that it could change with the times and the countries where it would be celebrated. Cardinal Ottaviani, who was prefect of the Holy Office at the time and therefore the institutional watchdog of the faith of the Church made a solemn declaration, saying that "this new rite is remarkably far removed in detail and as a whole from sacrificial theology as it had been drafted at the 22nd session of the Council of Trent". But no-one heeded him in those turbulent years.
Today the time has finally come to reform that negative reform, as Cardinal Ratzinger and the Primate of France, Cardinal Decourtray, have requested. In our time here, over 115 priests have come to us to learn and relearn how to say the traditional Mass. Now eight monasteries in France have adopted the ancient rite as we have done. The Pope should lift the restrictions on the traditional Mass and declare that whoever wishes may celebrate it without obtaining the special permission now required.
He time and again tried to deal with Ratzinger on the up and up, asking over and over when he could expect the Pope to cite a date for a consecration. No date was ever given.
August 15th. It's right in Lefebvre's interview in "Fideliter" which I have posted before here. Cardinal Ratzinger asked Lefebvre for candidates and said the date would be August 15, but Lefebvre refused.
As for your notion that the bishops consecrated are not Catholic, that is an absurdity nobody else believes, not even Rome. They are themselves validly ordained and their ordinations of priests are valid.
The same goes for the Old Catholics. Their ordinations are valid too. They were the "vanguard of true Catholicism" once, too, during the "state of emergency" after the First Vatican Council.
Are these bishops who are not recognized by the Pope legitimate? Do they enjoy formal apostolic succession? Are they, in a word, Catholic bishops? ... as all tradition teaches: there cannot be a legitimate bishop without the pope, the head by divine right of the episcopal body. (Bishop Tissier de Mallerais)