Replies

I'm not impressed by your citations. They have been hashed and rehashed on this site for two years now. I note you do not cite Canon Law which allows for an EXCEPTION in a state of necessity for disobedience. The archbishop evoked this canon--legitimately. He therefore incurred no penalty, no matter how many times the Pope says he did.

It is not up to the pope to decide what the intention behind the Archbishop's disobedience. He presumes it was to deny his authority. But he offers no evidence for this, and, indeed, there is none. There are many reasons why a papal command might be refused--the rejection of his authority would be only one possibility among many.

The Archbishop had said it was to defend the ancient Mass in a state of necessity. There is a mountain of evidence to show this was his true belief. Though the Pope maintains there was no such state, the historical data is there for anybody with an open mind to see. Throughout the seventies and eighties, and up till today, the Church has been reeling from crisis to crisis. The Pope's own predecessor called it an "auto-destruction." It is difficult to believe, therefore, that the Archbishop was wrong to declare such a state, whatever JPII might say as he awaits his Vatican II springtime that somehow never comes.

Canon Law, remember, is the Pope's own law. And Canon Law reflects divine law--that the inculpable should not be punished. Only the Archbishop would know what was in his heart as the reason for disobedience--and he has said over and over it was to preserve the old Mass from destruction caused by the Pope's destructive liberal policies, and that he evoked the state of necessity for the salvation of souls and the good of the Church.

Had the Pope wanted certitude on all this, he had recourse to a papal tribunal. He did not rely on this customary means for determining the culpability of high prelates. Had he done so, he would have been obliged by canon law to provide the Archbishop with a means for self-defense. Apparently the Pope for whatever reasons wouldn't risk this. Instead he seized on the latae sententiae pretext to marginalize the SSPX and its defense of Catholic tradition. It has failed as a ploy. The SSPX continues to flourish even as the Novus Ordo wallows in continual and unabating apostasy and corruption.

"I note you do not cite Canon Law which allows for an EXCEPTION in a state of necessity for disobedience. The archbishop evoked this canon--legitimately."

I'm sorry, I didn't know that canon law CONFLICTED with Vatican I and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta. I thought the ultimate concern of Canon Law was the salvation of souls, which is what Vatican I speaks about. The funny thing is that the Pope thinks otherwise than your quote above, so this brings you back to Vatican I. We cite authoritative documents. You cite opinions. Every SSPX adherent is a canon lawyer, whose opinion surpasses that of the reigning Pontiff. I guess it is easier to fight outside the Church than inside of it.