1. You mis-characterize the conflict with Rome. It is not about criticizing the Pope, it is about defending Tradition. The dispute is between modernists and tradition, between former popes and councils and their teachings, and the novelties imposed by this pontiff and his predecessor Paul VI following Vatican II.
2. The latae sententiae excommunications are not really facts, they are suppositions, predicated upon the MOTIVES of the individuals involved. Everything depends on the dispositions of the consciences of Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers. If the consecrations were intended to deny papal authority, then they were indeed schismatic. But if they were intended--as canon law itself provides--to save souls in a time of necessity, then no penalty was ever incurred. JPII could not have known that the consecrations were schismatic. He had no insight into the souls of the men involved. He was merely surmising excommunications took place for the reason he gave--and he made this public. But he was patently wrong--since the Archbishop and his followers had been claiming for years it feared the Church was in the throes of crisis and that there was a great danger its Tradition would be lost without such traditional consecrations. This fear was legitimate and should have been respected by the Pope. It was instead summarily and foolishly dismissed. Yet the preponderance of evidence is that the SSPX has been right all along and the Pope has been dead wrong.
Still, if the Pope had wanted to prove an excommunication had actually taken place, he had recourse to a public tribunal--the usual means by which high churchmen had been judged in the past. JPII didn't do this--and he didn't do it for a reason. Had he called a tribunal to pass judgment, the Archbishop would have had the right to defend himself publicly, something the Vatican couldn't risk. The last thing it wanted was for the truth to be confronted squarely. So the Pope went another route--a far less definite one. He simply asserted that the latae sententiae decree--which was automatic and which depended on the internal moral disposition of the individuals involved--was an actual fact. But he couldn't know it was a fact--since he had no access to the workings of Lefebvre's conscience--or the consciences of other traditionalists involved. He simply made the assumption, ignoring his own canons in the process, those which stated explicitly that guilt or innocence depended on the internal dispositions of the subjects.
3. There were no assurances given to the Archbishop concerning the survival of the Tridentine Mass as you state. There was simply a promise that the Pontiff would consider the matter of whether or not to allow the consecration of a traditional bishop. That was it--a vague promise to think about it. This was a pretty slender thread on which to hang the entire fate of the traditional faith. And, in fact, in all the preceding years of his pontificate--and even up until today--not a single traditionalist has ever been appointed bishop--with the bishop of Campos the single exception. Words are cheap. This Pope's actions speak much louder. He has appointed countless perverts and apostates, but not a single traditionalist in twenty-five years, except for the Campos bishop--which was the result of much negotiation and arm-twisting. This speaks volumes about this Pontiff's real intentions. There is very little reason to trust a pope who for two-and-a-half decades has been consciously pursuing policies designed to deconstruct the Traditional Catholic Church.
So there is a conflict, right? You just said so.
Remember your original post? You stated that it was absurd to say that there was no communion between SSPX and Rome because SSPX acknowledges JPII as Pope and prays for him. My point was that there is wide-ranging disagreement between the two of you and for this reason, there can be no communion.
Characterize the conflict any way you want. I don't care. However, there is a conflict. Not "communion."
The latae sententiae excommunications are not really facts, they are suppositions, predicated upon the MOTIVES of the individuals involved. Everything depends on the dispositions of the consciences of Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers. If the consecrations were intended to deny papal authority, then they were indeed schismatic. But if they were intended--as canon law itself provides--to save souls in a time of necessity, then no penalty was ever incurred.
Firstly, Canon Law does indeed provide for exceptions to the rule of no episcopal consecrations without approval from the Holy See. The Canon to which you are referring would be this one:#1323 It states the circumstances where a penalty is not imposed:
a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;
Now one can imagine scenarios where this would apply. In times of war or persecution, for instance, where the Pontiff has been killed, exiled or rendered incommunicado. In situations of isolation, such as Communmist China, for example. All would fit nicely under this canon. But to interpret this canon the way you wish to interpret it, is a grave abuse of the legal process. It would mean that any bishop-Mahony, Gumbleton or anyone-who considered it "necessary" could consecrate a bishop-and there would be nothing the Pope could do about it. Why? Because as you state, the bishop was really sincere in his motives and thought it to be necessary.
Going over the head of the Pope is a denial of papal authority and it voids the "grave fear and necessity" argument.
JPII could not have known that the consecrations were schismatic. He had no insight into the souls of the men involved. He was merely surmising excommunications took place for the reason he gave--and he made this public. But he was patently wrong--since the Archbishop and his followers had been claiming for years it feared the Church was in the throes of crisis and that there was a great danger its Tradition would be lost without such traditional consecrations. This fear was legitimate and should have been respected by the Pope. It was instead summarily and foolishly dismissed. Yet the preponderance of evidence is that the SSPX has been right all along and the Pope has been dead wrong.
OK. So if I claim something repeatedly, and then despite warnings from higher authority, I carry through on a threat, then I'm exempt from censure? Absolutely not. If reading of souls is required before an excommunication is enforced, then nobody can be excommunicated.
There were no assurances given to the Archbishop concerning the survival of the Tridentine Mass as you state. There was simply a promise that the Pontiff would consider the matter of whether or not to allow the consecration of a traditional bishop. That was it--a vague promise to think about it. This was a pretty slender thread on which to hang the entire fate of the traditional faith. And, in fact, in all the preceding years of his pontificate--and even up until today--not a single traditionalist has ever been appointed bishop--with the bishop of Campos the single exception. Words are cheap. This Pope's actions speak much louder. He has appointed countless perverts and apostates, but not a single traditionalist in twenty-five years, except for the Campos bishop--which was the result of much negotiation and arm-twisting. This speaks volumes about this Pontiff's real intentions. There is very little reason to trust a pope who for two-and-a-half decades has been consciously pursuing policies designed to deconstruct the Traditional Catholic Church.
So the Pope couldn't know Lefebvre's intentions when he carried out the consecrations, but you and Lefebvre know the Pope's intentions? That seems a little strange. A little one-sided, wouldn't you say?
The Pope is under no obligation to consecrate bishops at the behest of his underlings. All he can do is do what he did; say that he would consider it. Further, he promised the Indult. Given this, it becomes very hard to sustain the "grave fear and necessity" argument.
The bottom line is this. For "the grave fear and necessity" argument to hold, it requires Lefebvre to a) not accept the repeated appeals and assurances from the Pope and the prefect of the congregation, b)ignore the Indult and c)believe that the Pope was acting in bad faith. Since you have assured us that there is no way the Pope could know Lefebvre's motives, I'm a little surprised that you seem to hold to the idea that Lefebvre could know the Pope's motives.