Rorate Caeli is reporting from reliable sources that Bishop Richard Williamson, expelled from the SSPX in 2012 for anti-Semitism, plans to consecrate a bishop at a monastery outside of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil on St. Joseph's Day (March 19, 2015). The motive is to have a bishop to assist Bishop Williamson by ordaining priests for "The Resistance", a group that is not canonically recognized.
The Resistance are the splinter group of former SSPX priests (headed by Frs. Pfeiffer, Chazel, and Hewko) who think Bishop Fellay is selling-out the order to the Novus Ordo (not true). They also have other traditional priests who help out.
If Bishop Williamson plans as so, than he and the new ordinand(s) will most likely incur excommunication according to Canons 1013 and 1382. But if you read the original Latin text of Canon 1013, which states:
"Null Episcopo licet quemquam consecrare in Episcopum, nisi prius constet de pontificio mandato." (Emphasis added)
"No bishop is permitted to consecrate anyone a bishop unless it is first evident that there is a pontifical mandate." (Emphasis added)
This is key in handing out excommunications. The 1983 Code of Canon Law does not actually say that the Pope has to issue a papal bull authorizing the consecration of a bishop for the sacramental life of the Church! The word "pontifical" does not exclusively apply to the Pope. When a bishop celebrates High Mass, it is referred to as a "Pontifical High Mass," with pontiff meaning high priest. The Pope is Pontifex Maximus, or Supreme Pontiff.
So in conclusion, the Latin word pontificio in lowercase does not exclusively mean the Pope. This proves how Archbishop Lefebvre was able to consecrate and that the original SSPX excommunications were null and void to begin with. So in theory, any bishop can consecrate auxiliary bishops without permission of the Holy See.
If this canon is still the law when Cardinal Burke and Bishop Fellay need to consecrate bishops for reasons no one ever wants to even talk about, they can do it according to one word in the law. If the Holy Father was required to approve all bishops, then it would say "Papal", not "pontifical."
This report is not an endorsement of His Excellency's decision, but just to report the facts according to the law.