Peter and his successors supply all jurisdiction.
From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from the Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone ... No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church. (Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum)
For the SSPX, there can be no state of emergency in any case, since they were offered jurisdiction by the Apostolic See.
Was Athanasius illigal and wrong because he went into other Bishops diocese when he was kicked out of his own and disobeyed the Pope?
St. Athanasius didn't disobey the Pope.
Pope Liberious signed the semi Arian Creed and excommunicated Athansius see last section
No, he didn't.
Take it up with Trent and Pius VI who said that although the Church has the right to change how the sacraments are dispensed it doesn’t have the right to create a New Rite newer than 200 years old
How exactly does the Church create a New Rite more than 200 years old?
It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification. (Pius XII, "Mediator Dei" 58)
"It is no sense doctrinally false that a Pope, as a private doctor, and much more bishops, when not teaching formally, may err, as we find they did err in the fourth century."
True, but the Church has condemned the following:
1. The proposition, which asserts "that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ,"--heretical. (Pius VI, "Auctorem Fidei", DZ 1501)
Bp. Gasser said at Vatican I:
Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the Church universal is not able to fail. For it is impossible that general obscurity be spread in respect to the more important truths which touch upon religion, as the Synod of Pistoia held.
Here are the facts. Jurisdiction is ultimately supplied by God. The highest good in law is for the salvation of souls. Archbishop Lefebvere acted according to his conscience and under canon law even if you think you are in a state of emergency what constitutes a state of necessity is not explicitly defined in the Code of Canon Law. The relevant canon in fact says: "No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept: acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls" (Canon 1324, 4E°). When we speak of the "state of necessity" (sometimes called "state of emergency"), we mean that Lefebvre acted "by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience. Lefebvre believed he was saving the Old Latin Mass for posterity because Rome was not nor did it have intentions to ordain Bishops in the old Rite in order to carry it on. Don’t you find it odd that only the society of St. John Mary Vianney in Campos is the only traditional society with a traditional Bishop who has official recognition with Rome? They had to do this for them because they already had one. So Lefebvre was naturally suspicious because Rome would not give them a direct date.
Another fact Athanasius was excommunicated because he did not go along with the program any more than did Archbishop Lefebvre who did not wear horns and was an orthodox Bishop unlike most of the ones we have today. “A.D. 353. The Council of Arles. The Pope sent to it {448} several Bishops as legates. The Fathers of the Council, including the Pope's legate, Vincent, subscribed the condemnation of Athanasius. Paulinus, Bishop of Treves, was nearly the only one who stood up for the Nicene faith and for Athanasius. He was accordingly banished into Phrygia, where he died.
see
You need to get your facts straight. I don’t think you read Greek and Latin as Cardinal Newman did and this is what he said,”There is nothing, whether in the historians and holy fathers, or in his own letters, to prevent our coming to the conclusion, that Liberius communicated with the Arians, and confirmed the sentence passed by them against Athanasius; but he is not at all on that account to be called a heretic." see post 43.
Count Capponi of the Roman Rotta said, “Pope Liberius finally signed the excommunication of St. Athanasius under duress—in the twentieth century Pope Paul VI was admittedly taken in and hoodwinked by his misguided optimism, but there was no duress; (d) the present crisis is not only one of faith but of morals as well. In addition, today not only one dogma, albeit a very important one, is denied as with Arianism, but all dogmas, be it even the existence of a personal God!
see www.ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/CRIFAITH.HTM ‑ 30k
Trent and Que Primum mandated that any Rite in order to continue had to be in existence over 200 years such as say the “Dominican Rite”. There were too many Rites being practiced which were under 150 years old during the time of Trent and unlike today’s conciliar Popes Pope St. Pius V was willing to do something about it. The rite he canonized was not new but old he was just making sure that no on messed with it. I already quoted Trent to you which stated that no Pastor whatsoever which includes the Pope can create a New Rite. Now don’t throw around the term New Rite and say this Pope or that Pope before 1960 said we can have a New Rite because when that was said it was not said in the same sense which you and the radical liturgical “experts” meant it.
St. Vincent of Lerins (5th cent. A.D.), who stated that "a true and genuine Catholic…places nothing else ahead of the faith, neither the authority, the genius, the eloquence, nor philosophy of any man whatsoever, but is determined to hold and believe only those things whatsoever he knows the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient times. But whatsoever he shall perceive to have been introduced later by some one certain man, that which is new and unheard‑of, that which is contrary to all the saints, let him know that it does not pertain to religion but rather to temptation.
Decree of Papal Infallibility, promulgated by Pius IX at the First Vatican Council of 1870:
We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, is by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable.
Liberals, please note the last words. They say that “such definitions…are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable.”
Hence, once a doctrine has been defined by the Pope ex cathedra, be it by him acting alone or through a general council, he is prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching error. Therefore, these doctrines cannot be changed, not even by the future consent of the Church ‑ not even by a Pope himself. As St. Augustine (d. 430) said, “Rome has spoken, the case is now closed”.
Furthermore, according to the same council, not only are the doctrines unable to change, but also our interpretation of them. The Vat I Council declared that
“…the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention, to be perfected by human ingenuity; but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence, also, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our holy Mother the Church has once declared; nor is that meaning ever to departed from, under the pretence or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them.
And again, the same council also declared that
see Ses 3 Chapt 4:14 " If anyone shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of knowledge, a sense is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands; let him be anathema.
First Vatican Council also stated Ses. 3 chapt 4– “the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles.”
Vatican I see Ses 3 Chapt 4:and Canon 3 Ses. 3 " If anyone shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of knowledge, a sense is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands; let him be anathema."
Pius VI on 28 August, 1794, dealt the death‑blow to the influence of the
Council in his Bull "Auctorem Fidei", which condemned the propositions of this
Illegal council:
"[To contend that] ways must be prepared for people to unite their
voices with that of the whole Church ‑‑ if this be understood to
signify the introduction of the use of the vernacular language into
the liturgical prayers ‑‑ is condemned as false, rash, disturbing
to the order prescribed for the celebration of the sacred mysteries,
easily productive of many evils." (Auctorem Fidei)
Later in history, Pope Pius XII would again repeat the warning against
tampering with the liturgy in his encyclical "Mediator Dei" :
"This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless
antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise.
It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were
responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those
resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church,
... had every right and reason to condemn."
(Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei)
St. Athanasius, as did the heretical bishops of the East.
““Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”” (Epistle to the Catholics)