What "authoritative decrees"? What could have been more authoritative than Canon Law itself which provided the Archbishop with protection by means of canon 1323, the canon on the state of necessity? Even more, what could have been more authoritative than the Divine Law on which that canon is based and which demands that the innocent not be punished if no malice or evil was ever intended? It is gbcdoj who never responds logically to this argument, not I.
In fact, neither he nor yourself can deal with the truth of the actual situation--nor explain why the Archbishop's evocation of this canon was illegitimate under the circumstance. Did he not truly believe there was a state of emergency in the Church? Was there not truly such a crisis in the Church? No one back then who was aware of the ecclesiastical debacle that had accumulated since the close of the Council could have doubted the Archbishop's sincere evocation of this canon, given the present state of the Church.
It was the Pope in fact who ignored his own canon which provided this defense, condemning the Archbishop's action in a decree that contradicted his own Canon Law in the process--though it was his own unwillingness to remove Catholic Tradition from under the gun that precipitated the Archbishop's consecrations, not any sudden schismatic desire to reject the papacy itself--on the surface something highly implausible. This claim of schism was patently bogus. But John Paul couldn't bring himself to accept that it was bogus--because to do so would have meant entertaining the possibility that his own policies, not anything the Archbishop said or did, had been destructive to the faith.
"First, there is no need to "reunify with the Church." That unity was never broken, despite the erroneous statements by John Paul to the contrary."
Perhaps you should identify between your private opinion and assessment of the situation, and what the Church authoritatively teaches. I hate to say this, but your continuing SSPX propaganda on this site is just as destructive to souls as all the "private opinions" uttered by modernists from the pulpit, in CCD classes and in the media for the past 40 year. Ecclesia Dei Adflicta is the authoritative document on the matter--not your beloved private interpretation.
Also, the Pope is above Canon Law and his explanation of the actual applications of canon law resides with HIS authority, NOT yours. Why is this so difficult for you to fathom?
Modernists and SSPX adherents both are absolutely convinced of their own beloved private interpretations in matters where the Church has obviously taught otherwise.
What authoritative pronouncement has your diocesan ordinary or the Pope made directly to you that you must disobey. You bring up this "blind obedience" canard time after time, but as to this day, you have never cited anything that either one of them have ordered you to do against Faith and Morals or that is sinful.