1. All the traditional bishops were old and failing. None had seminaries.
2. You can't ordain priests without bishops. They were dying out. None since the Council were being consecrated--not a single one. That was the whole point. The Traditional Mass was being starved to death by modernist Rome.
3. Lefebvre was not looking for a way out of the mess. He was looking to preserve the ancient faith from destruction at the hands of those in the revolution who thought they knew better than all the preconciliar popes and councils and saints put together.
4. The Archbishop tried the negotiation route--it was futile. There was absolutely no trust left between him and Rome. The Pope had just organized Assisi--to the great scandal of all traditional Catholics. It appeared things were going from bad to worse, yet even so, because he revered the papacy, he tried to negotiate. But it was absolutely one-sided and went on pointlessly without the Pope budging an inch or committing himself to anything in writing. The Pope only reacted after the consecrations--with an outburst of anger which was the motu proprio.
5. The act was committed, yes. But the Pope wasn't judging that. He was judging motivations when he decided the bishops were excommunicated and in schism. They could only have been truly excommunicated if they never actually feared a state of necessity. But they did fear such a state and had stated this openly for years! And they could only be in schism if they acted to deny the Pope's legitimacy--but they did not act for that reason! They acted to protect the faith! You are excusing the Pope for trying to do what was impossible--judge the interior motives of others. He assumed they were disobedient because they wanted to deny his papacy--he totally discounted the real motive, which was to protect Catholic Tradition.
6. It was indeed harmful to the Church to attempt to destroy the ancient Mass. You may not think so--the Pope obviously did not think so--but traditional Catholics profoundly believe this, and nothing will ever shake their conviction. For over a thousand years the ancient Mass had been the crown jewel of the Catholic faith--and now it was being scheduled for execution. Even worse, the evidence was everywhere that the introduction of the New Mass and the suppression of the Old Missal had done immense injury to the Church. This is all beyond dispute. But even if the Archbishop were wrong about this, even if the new Mass were not the protestantizing, Trent-defying liturgy he supposed--he nevertheless believed this sincerely--and therefore could not have been culpable under canon law. Under Canon Law it is what he believed when he acted that mattered, not what the Pope or anyone else imagined to have been his motive.
7. Of course the Motu Proprio is a nullity as far as condemning the SSPX goes. Why? Because it is superceded in authority by the Pope's own Canon Law which allowed for the SSPX to disobey if they feared a state of necessity existed. Canon Law has priority over the Pope's own whim in a letter. Not only this, but Divine Law itself demands that the Pontiff concede this point out of justice.
So - only the SSPX is traditional. All others are modernist heretics. Thus - the SSPX is the Church. This is quite foolish.
Where dogma was concerned, it was evident that not only was the Cardinal totally orthodox and traditional, but that he was an outstanding theologian ... He was totally orthodox, and as it did not trouble him, he could not see any reason why it should trouble anyone, providing that it was celebrated reverently and without abuses. He told me with great satisfaction how a group of German tourists had attempted to receive Communion in the hand when assisting at his Mass in St. Peter's Basilica a few days before. He had made them all kneel down and receive Communion on the tongue ... There is not the least doubt that Cardinal Seper was a devout and totally orthodox Catholic. He was a dedicated servant of the Church and did his duty courageously and dispassionately, condemning error whenever he saw it and witnessing to the Truth. (Michael Davies, Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Vol. 3, XXII)
But it was absolutely one-sided and went on pointlessly without the Pope budging an inch or committing himself to anything in writing.
The Protocol was a commitment. It was Msgr. Lefebvre who backed out, insisting that the Pope ordain all three of his chosen bishops. It was Msgr. Lefebvre who refused to submit candidates to Rome, even though he admitted privately that there were many traditionalists whom Rome would accept as bishop. It was Msgr. Lefebvre who couldn't wait 45 days until August 15th for his bishop.
One sign that was taken very seriously by the Society was Rome's harsh mistreatment recently of the Indult fraternity, FSSP. The minute a dispute arose over a minor liturgical matter, Rome came down hard on the superior general, firing him and several priest theologians who taught at the Fraternity's seminary, then appointing as superior someone more congenial to Rome, someone more accepting of the Novus Ordo. In other words, tradition is kept on a very tight leash and this won't change as long as modernism retains its grip.
Fr. Josef Bisig was not "fired" by Cardinal Castrillon, and to suggest that he was dismissed from his post is to sully the reputation of the Fraternity’s founding Superior General. Father Bisig had reached the end of his term of office, and had said more than once that he was content not to be re-elected. One of the very purposes for which the General Chapter had come together was to elect a Superior General. Thus, to claim that "Hoyos fired Bisig, disallowing his or anyone else’s canonical election" would logically mean that the Cardinal also fired every other Fraternity member.Rome has no "new" policy towards the Fraternity of St. Peter: back in 1988, Cardinal Mayer told Fr. Bisig that Rome would not forbid its members to use the revised liturgical books, and always rejected any attempts to put into the Constitutions the word "exclusive" or anything which implied an exclusivism meaning that Fraternity members could not use the revised texts. The Fraternity has always made it clear that it has, "by papal charter", the privilege of using the 1962 books (and no others) in its sacramental ministry, but such a privilege is something which cannot take away or replace the right given to all Catholic priests of using the books revised by Pope Paul VI.
"Hundreds of thousands of laymen … must soon contend with traditionalist parishes that will … become dual-rite". This alarmingly apocalyptic image has no foundation whatsoever in fact and indeed flies in the face of what Cardinal Castrillon wrote in his letter about the future of the Fraternity. The Cardinal, whilst admitting that he cannot bind the Fraternity to only the 1962 rite, goes further than any previous President of the Commission in limiting the possibilities of a Fraternity priest using the new rite (and remember, the right to use it is not the same as wanting to use it, let alone actually using it—a nuance somewhat lost in this dramatic editorial), and in encouraging us to continue to use the 1962 books, and actually justifying our continued use in his letter...
Since so much of these attacks focuses upon assassinating the character of the new Superior General of the Fraternity, Fr. Arnaud Devillers, we decided to get his viewpoint on certain allegations made against him in this periodical:
Were you appointed by Rome, as Mr. McCaffrey alleges, on the understanding that you would move the Fraternity towards the revised liturgy of Pope Paul VI, or because you were pro-concelebration?There was not, and never has been any such an understanding. I told the Cardinal, when the question of my appointment was raised, that I did not concelebrate and had no intention of doing so. This was never an issue.
Do you intend to tell Rome, as The Latin Mass speculates, that we need Communion in the hand, vernacular readings, the 1965 rite, or Mass facing the people in our apostolates?
Of course not – this is nothing more than gratuitous speculation, without any foundation in fact. I have no intention of proposing any of these things to Rome, or of seeking to impose them in any of our apostolates.
Because it is superceded in authority by the Pope's own Canon Law which allowed for the SSPX to disobey if they feared a state of necessity existed. Canon Law has priority over the Pope's own whim in a letter.
No, it's "superseded" by your mistaken understanding of Canon Law. There was no ignorance, since Msgr. Lefebvre had been informed concerning the non-existence of the "state of necessity" (a concession which is granted by the Pope for extraordinary situations - not for disobeying him by performing schismatic acts).