[ultima ratio]

Let me see if we can take this a step further. Do you agree with Thomas Aquinas and Robert Belarmine, among others, that no one, not even the pope, may command something that would seriously harm the Church? Do you agree with these doctors of the Church that in such a case we have the right, and even the duty, to resist such a command? Would you still argue despite this that JnPaulII--for all his charisma and immense popularity--had the right to command Lefebvre not to consecrate, knowing full well that the Archbishop was old and in ill health and would have no successor to assure the ordination of traditional priests, and knowing full well this would mean the destruction of the traditional Mass? Would you admit that there are limits to what even a pope may command legitimately in such a dire situation? Would you admit the past few decades sheds fresh light on what Lefebvre saw clearly as an attack on the faith itself which he properly and in good conscience rejected?

[Polycarp]

Would you still argue despite this that JnPaulII--for all his charisma and immense popularity--had the right to command Lefebvre not to consecrate, knowing full well that the Archbishop was old and in ill health and would have no successor to assure the ordination of traditional priests, and knowing full well this would mean the destruction of the traditional Mass?

Who are you trying to kid? Lefevre was indeed permitted to consecrate a bishop. One bishop. He chose instead to consecrate Four. In absolute disobedience to the Roman Pontiff. After being told explicitly of the consequences of such acts! Yes, JPII had the right to allow Lefevre to consecrate ONE bishop. Only one, if JPII thought that prudent. Your plea to emotionalism and necessity does not change this.

And the Indult was granted prior to this, so no claims such as yours here apply.

Would you admit that there are limits to what even a pope may command legitimately in such a dire situation?

No. Rome has spoken. Rome decided it was not dire. Closed case.

Would you admit the past few decades sheds fresh light on what Lefebvre saw

Yes

clearly as an attack on the faith itself which he properly and in good conscience rejected?

No, when he disobeyed the Pope he acted not out of good faith or good conscience but out of foolish pride, thinking he, a bishop, knew better what was right for the Church than the Pope elected by the Holy Spirit.