Replies

I was referring to the motu proprio--which merely announced something had supposedly taken place and had kicked-in automatically. He himself refers to the late sententiae. But he never himself officially declared the Society excommunicated nor schismatic--only unofficially in a letter, and wrongly, by the way. Canon Law, remember, had its own caveats to disobedience--and it is the Pope's own law, trumping even the motu proprio as authoritative. It was a canon of Canon Law providing for the "state of necessity" that the Archbishop properly evoked. Therefore no penalty was ever sustained. That is the bottom line canonically, however much p.r. Rome puts out to the contrary.

It was a canon of Canon Law providing for the "state of necessity" that the Archbishop properly evoked. Therefore no penalty was ever sustained. That is the bottom line canonically, however much p.r. Rome puts out to the contrary.

I think you clarified my understanding of what happened there too, thanks.

"That is the bottom line canonically, however much p.r. Rome puts out to the contrary."

According to "ultima ratio's" illogical reasoning (how ironic!) or private opinion vs. that of the official arbiter of canon law--the Pope. Read Vatican I again. The Pope is bound by canon law, but HE is the ultimate interpreter. Therefore, his interpretation of canon law, unless proven otherwise by the Roman Rota (whom the Pope is over, by the way) is authoritative. Do you have an official document from Rome saying something different than Ecclesia Dei Adflicta? Or do you have a "canon lawyer" SSPX priest? That would be quite humorous since the SSPX does not even recognize the authority of the 1983 code, but always reverts to the 1917 code. So, according to your SSPX canon lawyer per the 1917 code, Archbishop Lefebvre's excommunication was unjust or invalid, even though he ordained bishops against the will of the Holy Father? Is that what you are saying?