My previous post had very little to do with sedevacantism, but looks like you have focused on the comparison I used. My main point is that I don't see how consistent R&R can possibly argue against Bishop Fellay - he wants to submit to Francis whom even Williamson recognizes as Sovereign Pontiff.
However, I have a question - I could not find any information regarding events before consecration (as Bishop Williamson himself admits, they were not keen on revealing it beforehand). Did Bishop Williamson make any attempt to do the consecration with permission of the Holy See? It seems highly unlikely giving his rhetoric and keeping the consecration plans a secret for a long time. In that case, there is a difference between Bishop Faure's consecration and the 1988 consecrations - Archbishop Lefebvre did almost everything that was humanly possible to consecrate the bishops with permission of the Holy See, unlike Bishop Williamson who acted like a sedevacantist, totally disregarding and ignoring Rome (unless there was some attempt to obtain permission for Bishop Faure's consecration that I'm not aware of - hence my question).
Notwithstanding that a papal mandate was not requested this time, the reason that the Archbishop went ahead without it, was that he arrived at the obvious conclusion that such a mandate would not be given. Things now are much more certain that it would not be given today.
So essentially, with the underlying reasons given relating to the ongoing revolutionary crisis, the justification is precisely the same as that of 1988.
Wait a minute - what does it mean "he arrived at the obvious conclusion that such a mandate would not be given"? So private judgment of Bishop Williamson which tells him that he will probably not get a permission is a justification for totally ignoring the Pope and consecrating the bishop without even trying to obtain the papal mandate? How is that not disobediance? Acting in state of necessity does not dispense from obedience to the Roman Pontiff where it is possible (in that case it would be attempt to obtain papal permission, using all appropriate means to receive it, and perhaps performing consecration after being refused). As I said, Archbishop Lefebvre did everything that was humanly possible to perform the consecrations without disobediance to the Pope, while Bishop Williamson did not bother to make any effort towards obtaining the mandate from the man he claims to recognize as Pope.
The R&R position is indeed contradictory and unsound, but, that is not the issue here. The issue is whether at both times, the consecrating Bishop believed that he was acting in accordance with the mind and will of the Church in order to fulfill the great command. It is, and was, the same motivation and judgement in both cases.
Those who deny this, are being dishonest.
The introduction of the term sedevacantist is inflammatory and inapplicable to this action, and it only serves to distract and cloud the truth of the matter.
OK, since you focused on my comparison of +Williamson's action to sedevacantism - let's say that +Pivarunas or +Sanborn decide to consecrate new bishops tomorrow. Of course they will not even contact the Roman hierarchy (understandable considering their position) and they will also claim that they act in accordance with mind and will of the Church. I fail to see the difference between this and bishop Williamson's consecration - in both cases the Roman authorities are totally ignored. The only difference is that +Williamson claims to recognize Francis as Pope (which is not followed by any actions and is purely a lip-service as SSPX correctly pointed out in their official statement). But as I said, sedevacantism is not my focus.
I agree.
This has nothing to do with Sedevacantism.
+ABL and +Williamson were both "R&R" at the time of the 1988 and 2015 consecrations, respectively.
So any discussion of Sedevacantism vs. R&R is a distraction from the discussion at hand.
If you must have a good Sede discussion on this fine Sunday morning, please start a thread in the Crisis subforum.
As I already pointed out, sedevacantism was by no means the main focus of my previous post (as sede-doubtist I oppose sedevacantism - especially dogmatic sedevacantism - myself). Rather, I pointed out that it perfectly illustrates the problem with classic R&R position. A consistent R&R cannot:
1. Blame +Fellay for his course towards reconciliation. After all, he only wants to submit to the Roman Pontiff and legitimate hierarchy of the Catholic Church - who can blame him for that?
2. Justify +Williamson's complete disregard of Francis (lack of any attempt to perform the consecration with permission of the Holy See - state of necessity does not justify lack of any effort to obtain such permission) whom he recognizes as the true Pontiff.
If you reply to point number 1 by saying about conciliar revolution and danger to faith coming from reconciliation with Novus Ordo and acceptance of Vatican II, you assert that the Magisterium has defected and is teaching error which results in loss of faith in millions of souls. That is impossibile for the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which makes R&R position untenable.
But let me emphasize it again, as sede-doubtist myself I don't criticize Bishop Williamson and I'm happy he performed the consecration (I hope its not the last one, since +Faure's age indeed causes fears about future of the Resistance), but in my opinion it demonstrates (together with criticism of Bishop Fellay) how absurd R&R is.
But the classic R&R position is simply inconsistent, and the difference between +Williamson and +Fellay illustrates it perfectly.
Is not the difference between +Williamson and +Fellay nothing more than the difference between the classic SSPX and the FSSP? When the SSPX makes a deal, their operating position within the Church might be slightly different, but they'd be priests who wish to remain traditional operating under Roman authority, which is exactly the FSSP.
Not exactly, as FSSP officially accepts whole of Vatican II, the New Mass and the new sacraments, which SSPX (to some extent even now, with a new course under +Fellay) opposes. To make such a statement as you did we'd have to know the details of possible deal between SSPX and Rome (honestly, I doubt the deal can be made without full acceptance of Vatican II by SSPX - under Benedict XVI it seemed possible for SSPX to reconcile without having to embrace all of Vatican II, but these circuмstances are long gone).