[murphE]

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.

[BlackElk]

JP II was as knowledgeable as he needed to be as to the crimes of Marcel, the Econe 4 and their schismatic ecclesiastical love slaves.

[AlbionGirl]

What I don't understand, murphE, is that if you belong to the SSPX, and you truly believe that Abp. Lefevbre acted in a justifable, well-intentioned manner, what does it matter to you, if he, or you by extension, are called schismatic? He probably didn't care, so why should you? Not trying to be provactive, just wondering why that seems to be such a sore spot?

Technically, the EO are schismatics, do you let that influence your objectivity concerning their issues of disagreement with the RC Church? I don't. If I were a member of the SSPX, you could call me schismatic, skizzie, Lefevbre lap dog from morning till night, and you'd have to pay me to give a whit.

I think that I have Abp. Lefevbre to thank for the Tridentine,in large measure, and I think he accomplished more than he was aware of at the time. God may have used him specifically for what he accomplished. Who can know for sure?

Finally, if, as Pope John Paul II was wont to believe that salvation outside the RC Church is possible (and I agree, based on my 1952 Baltimore Catechism), then salvation is possible for members of the SSPX too. Why sweat the schismatic classification, if you believe your view of present day RC is just and justifiable?