However, I do know this. The consecration of bishops is not something which can be separated from the Holy See. You know this. I know this. The people involved knew this. To consecrate bishops illicitly does separate you from the Church. If it doesn't, what does?
That's why it carries a latae sententiae penalty. Do it and you're doomed. It's nothing personal against SSPX. You weren't singled out for an extraordinary excommunication which is what you seem to be alleging. The same thing happened to Thuc at Palmar de Troya.
Trying to judge their intentions is an area fraught with danger.
Yet that is exactly what JPII did in his motu proprio Ecclesia Dei.
However, I do know this. The consecration of bishops is not something which can be separated from the Holy See.
Obviously the procedures have changed due to circumstances in the world and the Church. History is replete with consecrations of bishops without the individual knowledge of the Pope. Any number of groups separated (geographically and circumstantially) have had to take it upon themselves to preserve the faith.
You know this. I know this. The people involved knew this. To consecrate bishops illicitly does separate you from the Church.
No it doesn't. Trespassing is a law designed to protect your property and person. It it not meant to prevent someone from running across your lawn with a hose in order to put the fire out when its burning down. If that were the case the law's purpose would be to let your house burn down.
If it doesn't, what does?
Ask the Orthodox and the Protestants. They don't appeal to the Pope for anything. They don't believe he has the rights he has.
By contrast the SSPX is asking for clear resolutions under the protection of papal infallibility on doctrinal issues. They are asking for canonical justice where there has been canonical injustice. If they were truly separate, they wouldn't bother to deal with the Pope.