CathInfo.com

So apparently if one is not an explicit dogma denier episcopal consecration sans papal mandate is no biggie?  Additionally, why is doing so under extenuating circuмstances (ie pope in exile, in secret under communist rule) used as justification for the present situation, ie when a sitting pope (believed to be so by the consecrator at any rate) freely commands an explicit "NO" to such wishes, as though the two were even remotely comparable?

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Quote from: Histrionics

So apparently if one is not an explicit dogma denier episcopal consecration sans papal mandate is no biggie?  Additionally, why is doing so under extenuating circuмstances (ie pope in exile, in secret under communist rule) used as justification for the present situation, ie when a sitting pope (believed to be so by the consecrator at any rate) freely commands an explicit "NO" to such wishes, as though the two were even remotely comparable?

Why do you think John Paul II and his advisors were against Archbishop LeFebrvre consecrating a bishop?

There are 5,000 bishops in the world, so one going about in a pre-Vatican II fashion shouldn't be such a threat to the conciliar applecart.

So, there are 5,000 bishops.  

Why did the novus ordo refuse to allow Archbishop LeFebrvre permission to consecrate a Bishop?

We'll put aside all the rampant abuses of the novus ordo and the changes to the canon law that now allow non-Catholics to receive communion.  And we'll put aside Assisi where John Paul II prayed alongside and with heretics and others.  

This question goes to Poche also.

Why did the novus ordo refuse to allow Archbishop LeFebrvre permission to consecrate a Bishop?

Yes, I understand all of this, and I'm leaving the moral uprightness of Archbishop Lefebvre's particular situation aside for the moment; my issue is with those justifying the consecrating of a bishop without Rome's mandate (using irrelevant historical examples that certainly didn't include the Roman Pontiff's explicitly forbidding the act) isn't problematic in principle (just as long as one is not a heretic), which many have done in this thread.

Comparing apples to oranges like poche did, I used as a simply an example, showing that people who were historically excommunicated for "not having a papal mandate," had other more grave issues, but NOT the Archbishop. The Archbishop had very good reason to do what he did without a papal mandate.