"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.
1. "Ecclesia Dei Adflicta is the authoritative document on the matter--not your beloved private interpretation."
No, Canon Law is the authoritative document. And it was this document which provided the Archbishop with the means to resist papal coercion. In this regard, the Archbishop's evocation of canon 1323 was certainly legitimate--because there was indeed a state of necessity. Nor could there be any doubt that the ultimate arbiter of whether or not there was such a state properly rested with the Archbishop and no one else, insofar as it was what he thought that mattered according to the Pope's own Canon Law. Canon 1323, after all, concerned exceptions permitted in conscience when a command or precept was violated for some reason.
It was this evocation of the law itself which the Pope did not wish to address. But the canon was nevertheless a reality, and justice demanded that it should have been considered, especially given that the so-called offense was latae sententiae--automatic--and given as well that the well-documented and widespread devastation in the Church was the background behind the consecrations. Instead the Pope dismissed the canon out of hand, never referring even once to it, thereby assuming the worst--namely, that the Archbishop and his followers acted solely in order to deny his papacy and were therefore in schism. This was patently false, even unreasonable, and an enormous injustice to innocent men who acted only to protect the ancient Mass from destruction by the Vatican.
2. "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?"
This is one of your more foolish assertions. Canon Law IS the Pope's own law. He cannot be above himself! No canons were ever rescinded--nor could they be officially without due notification to the world and to the Archbishop in particular. Moreover, Canon Law is based on the Divine Law, which means that justice must always prevail in every instance. Certainly no one who is not guilty in conscience should ever be unjustly punished. That must be the bottom line. As I've said many times, the Pope is not limited from below, but he is limited from above and so cannot treat his subordinates according to his own whims, but must observe the rules of his own canons and treat others justly. Not to do so is an abuse of power, pure and simple. This holds especially true of a pontiff--someone who is prosecutor, judge and jury all at the same time.
3. "Modernists and SSPX adherents both are absolutely convinced of their own beloved private interpretations in matters where the Church has obviously taught otherwise."
The truth is just the opposite. SSPX does not interpret anything privately but observes all Church teachings. Because its adherents are traditionalists, they strictly follow the teachings of the Church--which include, by the way, the right of individuals to be treated justly by their pontiff and the right of individuals to resist when superiors, even a pope, would force them to act in ways harmful to the faith. There is nothing therefore inconsistent with resisting the Pope's modernist agenda--it is very much in keeping with traditional Catholic thought throughout the ages. Modernists, on the other hand, reject past Church teachings in favor of what is novel and heterodox. The reason you conflate the two is that you refuse to accept the legitimacy of the SSPX's claims of faith vis a vis the Pope. You place your trust in the Pope's authority even when it is out of sync with traditional Church thinking. This is wrong.
4. "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."
Why bring me into the argument? The issue is whether the Pope was right to deny the Archbishop the mandate to consecrate, given that without such a mandate it was virtually certain the ancient Mass would not have survived. This would have been tremendously damaging to the Church--an incalculable evil. I had nothing to do with any of this. I simply go to Mass where I find the Mass to be inspiring and the priests to be devout and learned and dedicated to preaching the Gospel and handing-down to our children the true faith. What you don't like is the cogency of my argument. You rail against it. But facts are facts--and you have not proved me wrong on any single point.