Replies

Please pardon me for answering questions you were directing to another. I think some shades of grey are allowed here.

Is SSPX a schism as noted by Pope John Paul II in Ecclesia Dei?

Objectively, it would seem to fulfill the definition under Canon Law. However, there are enough "state of mind" exceptions carved out that we do not know if Lefebvre qualifies for the "subjective" exception. Still, I believe we should assume the objective barring overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The fact that Lefebvre originally signed a deal before backing out seems to lessen the degree of "emergency." The secondary fact that he lived for several more years (albeit in bad health) but made no move to normalize the situation reflects badly. The regular Catholic's perception of this is further muddied by the large number of priests and bishops who are in what Cardinal Ratzinger called "material schism."

Were Marcel LeFebvre and his Econe Four (illicitly consecrated bishops) excommunicated by John Paul II?

No. They were not. Pope John Paul II announced that they had incurred a latae sententiae ("self-imposed") excommunication by means of their act. That is not the same as Pope John Paul II actually excommunicating them. Personally, I would have preferred a formal decree, but that could have involved an appeal and trials and all that, and I don't think the curia wanted to get involved in that. To me, it would have made the situation a lot less ambiguous. I find latae sententiae excommunications problematic, because it is sometimes impossible to tell when they occur. For instance, a successfully-procured abortion carries with it an automatic latae sententiae excommunication. However, it turns out that at one Michigan Avenue Chicago abortion mill in the '80's, that false positive pregnancy test results were given, and "abortions" were performed in girls and women who were not even pregnant!! So, technically, though in a state of serious sin (that is acting to abort), since there was no abortion, they would not have been excommunicated.

I would have preferred a formal decree, but that could have involved an appeal and trials and all that, and I don't think the curia wanted to get involved in that.

Exactly, no opportunity for the accused to present their case, no opportunity to openly define the reasons for the belief that a state of emergency exists, and no opportunity to be publicly vindicated, how clever of the curia.

I find latae sententiae excommunications problematic because it is sometimes impossible to tell when they occur.

Apparently this is not a problem for some people who believe themselves to be omniscient with respect to the hearts, minds and motives of others.

Hey, my friend, who is the lawyer (albeit recovering) here?

I disagree generally with your post (this a rarity indeed!) but will not give the schizzies aid and comfort by taking it up with you extensively in public. Suffice it to say that SSPX schismatic claims of "necessity" are ludicrous, that such claims amount to a rejected plea of insanity in Marcel's case, that JP II is the Supreme Legislator of Canon Law, that nothing whatsoever in the demeanor of the schismatics suggests their Catholicism, that the existence of other disobedient miscreants who are of different persuasions than the schismatics does NOT justify the disobedience of the schismatics.

All in all, I am sticking with JP II on this matter until he or a legitimate successor tells me otherwise. It does seem rather obvious that JP II regarded Marcel and the Econe 4 as excommunicated and that he had declared SSPX a schism. It is also my hope that nothing short of absolute public surrender and penance and renunciation by SSPX and the excommunicati will trigger the slightest leniency towards either or both. Strict discipline needs to be restored ASAP and relenting on the judgments of JP II is NOT a good place to begin.