One year after the consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre gave a strident interview denouncing the 'Conciliar Church' and those calling for him to 'return.'
Thank God for Archbishop Lefebvre. Were it not for his faithfulness, there would now only be the abomination of the novus ordo which I will never attend again.
I would like to see the following statement developed further:
“The Roman Pontiff – if legitimate – has the absolute right to refuse permission to consecrate, notwithstanding previously having given permission.”
My understanding is that if unauthorized consecrations are compelled by necessity, it is not within the power of the pope to hinder them, and that even should he attempt to do so, his will must be disregarded (since his subject could not obey without himself sinning grievously by omission in failing to come to the aid of those in grave spiritual necessity).
One fairly recent example would be Cardinal Slipyj’s disregard for Paul VI’s ban on consecrating bishops in communist territory. Not only did Slypyj suffer no canonical penalty (despite suspension being latae sententiae in the 1917 CIC then in effect), with Paul VI having been made aware, but Paul VI later gave office to one of the bishop’s clandestinely consecrated (who also would have been suspended).
That Paul VI’s legitimacy is questionable is besides the point, as Slipyj certainly recognized him as legitimate, and proceeded with the consecrations in violation of the prohibition without consequence.
On the subject of the limitations of papal power and episcopal consecration, see the article “The 1988 Episcopal Consecrations: A Theological Study (Part II) here:
Start your own website mate.
WM Review article drops, and I click.
It’s really quite simple.
God only knows but we have been blessed by the actions he took and the number of souls that have been saved
Thank you for your ongoing work.
Blessings and appreciation from Sydney Australia.
Thank God for Archbishop Lefebvre. Were it not for his faithfulness, there would now only be the abomination of the novus ordo which I will never attend again.
In Hoc Signo Vinces.
I would like to see the following statement developed further:
“The Roman Pontiff – if legitimate – has the absolute right to refuse permission to consecrate, notwithstanding previously having given permission.”
My understanding is that if unauthorized consecrations are compelled by necessity, it is not within the power of the pope to hinder them, and that even should he attempt to do so, his will must be disregarded (since his subject could not obey without himself sinning grievously by omission in failing to come to the aid of those in grave spiritual necessity).
One fairly recent example would be Cardinal Slipyj’s disregard for Paul VI’s ban on consecrating bishops in communist territory. Not only did Slypyj suffer no canonical penalty (despite suspension being latae sententiae in the 1917 CIC then in effect), with Paul VI having been made aware, but Paul VI later gave office to one of the bishop’s clandestinely consecrated (who also would have been suspended).
That Paul VI’s legitimacy is questionable is besides the point, as Slipyj certainly recognized him as legitimate, and proceeded with the consecrations in violation of the prohibition without consequence.
On the subject of the limitations of papal power and episcopal consecration, see the article “The 1988 Episcopal Consecrations: A Theological Study (Part II) here:
https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm
On the subject of Slypij’s consecrations against the will of Paul VI, without suffering any latae sententiae penalty because of necessity, see here:
https://onepeterfive.com/clandestine-ordinations-against-church-law-lessons-from-cardinal-wojtyla-and-cardinal-slipyj/
Where would we be without his bravery?