When ABL decided to consecrate 4 bishops he did not do so lightly.

Well, we disagree here.  I am not convinced that an illicit consecration was the only way to preserve tradition, or that Bishopric Lefebvre was correctly preserving tradition in the first place.  Once again. I mean no disrespect to the Archbishop himself, who I acknowledged was sincere and seems to have been a good man, form what I know of him.  

All told, ABL concluded it was the ONLY way to preserve tradition, and history
has proved him correct - of the 4 priests he chose, only ONE is standing up for
the tradition ABL was hoping to hand down.  

What if he had only consecrated one bishop?  That would have been the same
one - +Williamson!!  So what good did the other 3 do?  

Well, who knows what would have happened if +W had been the only one.  The
enemies might have found a way to make him "disappear" a lot faster than
they have now.  

But it sounds like you're not in favor of ANY consecrations.  So then you would
not be in favor of one now, either.  What are you going to have to say when
+W announces his decision to consecrate Fr. Hewko a bishop, for example?  

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

Quote from: Sigismund

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

It still follows from the principle that Archbishop Lefebvre committed a schismatic act that adhering to the schism extends to those who agree with him. And the whole SSPX (barring those who disagreed and left the Society) adhered to him. And that was what Pope John Paul II warned against doing. Saying the SSPX is not in schism and yet adheres to Archbishop Lefebvre's consecration of the 4 bishops (deemed schismatic by Pope John Paul II) is quite contradictory.

Perhaps, but that it seems is the current position. of the Church's governing authority. Even if  this is true, it would mean that those who adhere to the Archbishop's decision approve of a schismatic act, also no doubt sincerely.  I am not sure that this actually brings the canonical censures for schism upon them.

You're using the term "schism" a little loosely here.

I think it would have been sinful for the Archbishop to NOT have Consecrated the Bishops. He knew Tradition would be in real jeopardy should he die without Consecrating Bishops, because the Society would have ultimately died with him.

When the Pope tells someone to abandon Tradition, there's no obligation to obey. It wasn't a schismatic act, he had no choice.

Well, we disagree here.  I am not convinced that an illicit consecration was the only way to preserve tradition, or that Bishopric Lefebvre was correctly preserving tradition in the first place.  Once again. I mean no disrespect to the Archbishop himself, who I acknowledged was sincere and seems to have been a good man, form what I know of him.  

Rome didn't want him to Consecrate anyone, deal or not, so he really had no other choice.

If Rome wouldn't let him Consecrate any Bishops, should he have just let the Society die with him? That wouldn't have been a logical option.

And having Rome continue to delay the consecration and wanting their own candidate, probably a Modernist or amenable to them, consecrated, or at least hoping Archbishop Lefebvre would die without the SSPX having bishops, and able to impose their will on them (admittedly conjectural, but not impossible)? Archbishop Lefebvre felt on this issue, it was only a choice between God and man, even if he be Christ's Vicar, since this vicar unfortunately was causing all sorts of scandals and promoting dangerous things!

The Church is not the SSPX.  

The Church will still be the CHurch if they do die out.  If not, it isn't the Church, and we should all be sedevacantist.  

I don't really have any response beyond what I have said here already.

I am surprised to notice that you have one ignore.  I understand why people would want to ignore me.  Even after the recent race thread, I still only have two.  I am puzzled about why anyone on this forum would want to ignore you.