But, ultima, it doesn't. Msgr. Lefebvre couldn't be ignorant of the lack of a state of necessity, since he was informed by the Congregation for Clergy and the Pope that the impending consecrations would incur excommunication. Consecrating bishops for a "state of necessity" is strictly when the Pope's approval can be assumed, at least tacitly, as in the case of St. Eusebius of Samosata. But when a bishop deliberately consecrates a bishop who will lack apostolic succession (as Msgr. Lefebvre did), that act is schismatic, because it is the creation of a non-Catholic bishop. Here is your own leader Bp. Tissier de Mallerais:
... would these bishops, not recognized by the pope, be legitimate? Would they enjoy the "formal apostolic succession"? In a word, would they be Catholic bishops?Fideliter: And that is a more difficult question to resolve than the one about jurisdiction, you say?
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Yes, because it has to do with the divine constitution of the Church, as all Tradition teaches: there can be no legitimate bishop without the pope, without at least the implicit consent of the pope, by divine right head of the episcopal body.
Besides, he's stepped away from his extreme view since. He now acknowledges Catholics may attend SSPX Masses to fulfill their Sunday obligation.
That's a letter from Msgr. Perl. It states "in the strict sense". But it doesn't retract the judgment of schism. In fact, when Msgr. Perl released the letter, he prefaced it with:
Unfortunately, as you will understand, we have no way of controlling what is done with our letters by their recipients. Our letter of 27 September 2002, which was evidently cited in The Remnant and on various websites, was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us. What was presented in the public forum is an abbreviated version of that letter which omits much of our pastoral counsel. Since a truncated form of this letter has now become public, we judge it appropriate to present the larger context of our response.
In a previous letter to the same correspondent we had already indicated the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X which we will summarize briefly here.
1.) The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.
2.) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.
Concerning this: there are two parts of Apostolic Succession. The matter, and the form. Protestant and Anglican "bishops" have neither. Schismatic bishops have what might be termed "material apostolic succession". Cardinal Journet explains:
The hierarchy is indivisible. But it can, in certain regions, be broken by force so that fragments of it subsist in a mutilated state beyond the field of the Church. Thus, in lands overrun by schism or by heresy we may find not only the sacramental powers deriving from Baptism and Confirmation, but the hierarchical power of order.The violent disjunction of the power of order from the power of jurisdiction—which latter disappears of itself whenever there is a rupture with the Sovereign Pontiff—its persistence in the uprooted state to which it is then reduced, its transmission, valid but not licit, beyond its proper and natural sphere, is always the sign of a terrible spiritual catastrophe, a partial victory of the spirit of evil over the Church of Christ, which henceforth will move through history as though divided in herself, and become a scandal to the Gentiles.
and also that:
In the first case the argument from apostolicity will indicate, with an exactitude that might be called material, the presence or absence of the power of order and of the Christian cultus in a Church. Wherever its transmission has been unbroken, there the power of order continues to exist and the cultus is validly celebrated. Apostolicity, to that extent, is safeguarded. But it is a partial and mutilated apostolicity,[1140] since apostolicity of jurisdiction is missing.[1141]1140 It would be gravely erroneous, remarks Billot, to restrict the question of apostolic succession to the validity of ordinations (De Ecclesia Christi, Rome 1921, p. 345) A purely material continuity, such as that observed in the Anglican or Swedish Churches, where invalidly consecrated bishops have supplanted the authentic ones, might be called an apparent apostolicity; one which results in the valid transmission of order alone, as in the Graeco-Russian Churches, might be called a partial or mutilated apostolicity; and where there are both powers of order and jurisdiction we might say plenary apostolicity. Apparent apostolicity is purely exterior; partial apostolicity might be called material apostolicity, and the plenary might be called formal. But if theologians agree here in substance, they do not always use the words "material" and "formal" in the same way.
1141 If it is true that spiritual jurisdiction, the pastoral power, resides, not indeed exclusively but totally and primarily in the Supreme Pastor of the Christian flock, then in principle it ceases to exist in an episcopate that breaks with him: "The bishops would lose the right and the power to govern," says Leo X III, in the Encyclical Satis Cognitum, "if they wilfully separated themselves from Peter and his successors." However, in point of fact, the dissident Churches that have kept the power of order, such as the Graeco-Russian, can, by express or tacit concession of the Sovereign Pontiff, possess a partial but genuine jurisdiction. I have pointed this out already and it should be borne in mind.
So, as Bp. Tissier said: "there can be no legitimate bishop without the pope, without at least the implicit consent of the pope". Without at least an implicit consent, there is a lack of formal apostolicity - it is mutiliated or material. So when Msgr. Lefebvre made his four bishops to carry on his work, they were not in the full sense Successors of the Apostles. This is why, I think, one can speak of the consecrations as a schismatic act - because they were the creation of non-Catholic, schismatic, illegitimate bishops.
Here we go again. You say, "But, ultima, it doesn't. Msgr. Lefebvre couldn't be ignorant of the lack of a state of necessity, since he was informed by the Congregation for Clergy and the Pope that the impending consecrations would incur excommunication."
But the canon didn't say the Archbishop had to get permission for a state of necessity, it said he had to fear such a state existed--and he most certainly did. In fact, it existed PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THE PEOPLE YOU TALK ABOUT--THE POPE AND HIS CONGREGATION. The emergency was caused by them, they were the ones swinging the wrecking-ball. Why in your wildest dreams would you suppose he should have taken their advice?
The circular way you argue only proves how right he was. He was worried about the destructive agendas of these men--and they were the ones in power. The Pope was and is no friend to Tradition, and he knew it. He was not willing to hang the entire fate of Traditional Catholicism on a vague promise by a man who was so unwise and careless about the faith. And he was right not to do so. Traditional Catholicism had to be protected at all costs--even at the expense of his own reputation. Since the Pope was so imprudent in this regard, it was left to the Archbishop to fill the breach.
As for Perl's crass comment--"To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated"--since there was no schism and no excommunication--this is as wrong as the Pope's original statement. In this he is simply parroting his master--and doing the usual Vatican back-flip to boot. But zero plus zero equals zero. That is to say, nothing can make a good act evil, nothing can make a defense of Catholic Tradition wrong, nothing can make an desire to protect the faith a denial of the papacy. All such charges are bogus and, in my opinion, quite harmful to the Church. They are part of the reason Rome has so little credibility these days.
As for myself, I certainly believe the Archbishop was innocent. The facts are the facts and the truth is the truth. Nothing can change this--not even a pope. Nor can the truth excommunicate me or anybody else.