[ultima ratio]

Your citation of Cardinal Lara proves my point. The consecration of bishops were not schismatic acts. The Cardinal attempts to claim that the supposed schism was only formalized by Rome, that the schism was already a fact. What a load of baloney!. The very definition of schism--which Michael Davies points out in his brilliant study "In Defense of Archbishop Lefebvre"--is found in the INTENTION of the accused person, not in the Curia at Rome or even in Canon Law. The Cardinal here is purporting to know as certain that the Archbishop intended to break with the Church. This is patently false. As Davies points out, every schism involves an act of disobedience, but not every act of disobedience involves schism. The willingness of Rome to think the worst is a clear indication that it carried an animus against the traditionalism of Lefebvre. No other prelate has been so treated before or since by this pontiff.

What is astonishing, however, was Lara's grudging admission that the canons themselves do not prove anything--he must resort to supposed intentions about which he can have no inside knowledge--only Lefebvre knew what was in his heart. Rome therefore over-reacted by FORMALIZING something it did not know legally or with certitude--how could it, especially against every statement of the Archbishop proving he remained submissive to the Pope--despite his consecrations, achieved for the good, he believed, of the Church itself.