1. The "deal" is about legalisms. As pope JPII most definitely has the authority to SAY someone is excommunicated and to set up a legal framework that makes life difficult within the Church as a result of such a declaration.
2. But the pope cannot make someone guilty who is, in fact, innocent. In other words, the pope can be wrong in his judgment--and in such a case the innocent party would rightfully consider any excommunication a nullity. The legal framework, however, would remain and need to be worked out. In other words, a "deal" would have to be arranged satsifactory to both the conscience of the innocent party and the Holy See.
3. This would be as if an innocent man were convicted by the Supreme Court for a crime from which there was no appeal outside the Court itself. The Court might be wrong to have convicted him, but the legal ramifications would remain regardless of his innocence. The moral ramifications, however, would favor the innocent party just the same. (cf. Dred Scott Decision.)
4. In the case of Archbishop Lefebvre in particular, the Pope was wrong to ever accuse him of denying lawful papal authority by consecrating bishops without a mandate. The motive for the Archbishop's doing this was not the denial of authority, but the salvation of souls and the desire to protect the ancient Mass from destruction. It is as if a father who is drunk should ask his son for the car keys. The son's refusal would not be a denial of paternal authority, but a wish to avoid a catastrophe.
5. In addition, it should be remembered the Archbishop properly evoked the Pope's own Canon Law--canons 1323-24--which allowed for apparent disobedience in a state of necessity. The Archbishop considered, in good conscience, that the Church was in the throes of crisis and that he was obliged to act to save it from those in the process of destroying it. Whether the Archbishop was correct or not was beside the point, moreover. Canon Law only asks that the subject be in good faith while acting--in which case no excommunication could be incurred.
6. Finally, it should likewise be remembered that while the Pope is the supreme authority in the Church, this means only that he may not be checked from below--by subordinates. But he is most definitely delimited from above--by Divine Law itself which commands that the innocent not be punished.
Got a traditional source for this?
The Jansenist heretics dared to teach such doctrines as that an excommunication pronounced by a lawful prelate could be ignored on a pretext of injustice ... Our predecessor of happy memory Clement XI in his constitution Unigenitus against the errors of Quesnell forbade and condemned statements of this kind. (Bl. Pius IX, Quartus Supra)
On November 7 at an SSPX retreat in Ridgefield, Connecticut, Bishop Fellay, Chief Bishop of the SSPX, was quoted as saying that "some of his priests might succumb to the pressure" of accepting the Novus Ordo. Can Fellay and the SSPX be trusted to stay away from Newvatican?
OK, what's up this time? Is this in reference to the rats in France or is there more trouble brewing?
It all comes from the idiocy of holding that the true Church can promulgate false teaching, a 'bad mass', etc.
THIS IS HERESY!!!.
The true Church cannot teach error, promulgate invalid, ineffective, or whatever excuse word the SSPX now uses, sacraments.
The fact that false teaching is being proclaimed, a heretical invalid mass promulgated, and similarly other invalid sacraments means that therfore WHAT IS PROMULGATING THEM IS NOT THE TRUE CHURCH!
Yeah, then they wonder why almost half of their priests have left since their founding - and 95% run back to the maws of satan of the novus ordo.
I think it's about more than that. The excommunications are what precipitated this and are the principal legal problem but the SSPX issue is now wide-ranging. The issue of which rite of Mass should be celebrated is just one of a whole range of issues which divide SSPX and Rome. Criticism has spread to include almost every area of the Pope's work and teaching and includes Vatican II, ecumenism, saints of the Church created during JPII's pontificate, the role of the Novus Ordo, the authority of the Pope etc. All of this would need to be addressed by any "deal".
To get back to your original post, this is precisely why there is no "communion" between Rome and SSPX. Division is wide-spread and general.
2. But the pope cannot make someone guilty who is, in fact, innocent. In other words, the pope can be wrong in his judgment--and in such a case the innocent party would rightfully consider any excommunication a nullity. The legal framework, however, would remain and need to be worked out. In other words, a "deal" would have to be arranged satsifactory to both the conscience of the innocent party and the Holy See.
Er....what innnocent party? The excommunications are a fact. Irrespective of how they are viewed by SSPX. Do I detect the time-honored liberal thinking "if I consider myself to be a victim, then I am a victim"?
3. This would be as if an innocent man were convicted by the Supreme Court for a crime from which there was no appeal outside the Court itself. The Court might be wrong to have convicted him, but the legal ramifications would remain regardless of his innocence. The moral ramifications, however, would favor the innocent party just the same. (cf. Dred Scott Decision.)
Again, you've presumed innocence. Or should I say declared innocence. That is your opinion.
4. In the case of Archbishop Lefebvre in particular, the Pope was wrong to ever accuse him of denying lawful papal authority by consecrating bishops without a mandate. The motive for the Archbishop's doing this was not the denial of authority, but the salvation of souls and the desire to protect the ancient Mass from destruction. It is as if a father who is drunk should ask his son for the car keys. The son's refusal would not be a denial of paternal authority, but a wish to avoid a catastrophe.
Firstly only God and the Archbishop know what his motives truly were. You and I and the Pope must take his word. Secondly, it becomes difficult to sustain the argument that he was trying to protect the Mass from destruction when 1) the Holy Father and the Prefect of the Congregation (Ratzinger) have assured him that destruction of the Tridentine Rite will not occur and have pleaded with him not to go forward with the consecration. 2)The Indult has been proposed to ensure that this does not occur.
Lefebvre's claim that he was acting to prevent destruction of the Mass and/or the Faith implies that he believes the Pope and Ratzinger to be deceiving him and that he does not accept their assurances nor the Indult. This is a most serious situation. I'm constantly hearing that Lefebvre acted in good faith, but for this to be so it means that JPII and Ratzinger must have been acting in bad faith. Therein lies my big problem with this.
5. In addition, it should be remembered the Archbishop properly evoked the Pope's own Canon Law--canons 1323-24--which allowed for apparent disobedience in a state of necessity. The Archbishop considered, in good conscience, that the Church was in the throes of crisis and that he was obliged to act to save it from those in the process of destroying it. Whether the Archbishop was correct or not was beside the point, moreover. Canon Law only asks that the subject be in good faith while acting--in which case no excommunication could be incurred.
Again, the key words "good faith".
As for the Canons I'm not even sure that they apply in this situation. A state of necessity is hard to invoke when an Indult has been proposed to ensure that the Mass be available. Most schismatics and heretics down through the centuries have claimed "good faith". Didn't Luther believe that he was putting the Church back on track?
6. Finally, it should likewise be remembered that while the Pope is the supreme authority in the Church, this means only that he may not be checked from below--by subordinates. But he is most definitely delimited from above--by Divine Law itself which commands that the innocent not be punished.
The Pope cannot allow unauthorized episcopal consecrations. Period. Even with the "good faith" argument. You can see where this could lead, right? Any bishop could claim this right. That's why it incurs an automatic penalty.