Replies

You write, "Lefebvre was mistaken." Surely you realize this makes no difference--even if he was mistaken, so long as he believed a State of Necessity existed, the excommunication was void. So even if you are correct, that the Pope was right and Lefebvre wrong--which I suggest is absurd in view of the modernist debacle of the past 30 years--the Pope's own canons state the Archbishop incurred no excommunication if he merely believed he was acting out of a State of Necessity. The Pope, moreover, has never abrogated these canons. They are still in force and condition anything he might have said in Ecclesia Dei.

The top canonists in Rome, moreover, believe no excommunication was incurred. And not long ago when the Bishop of Honolulu excommunicated six Catholics for disobeying his warnings not to attend SSPX Masses, the six appealed to Rome and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ruled the excommunication was invalid since the six individuals were clearly not in schism for attending such Masses. Still again, in 2000 when the Prefect for Ecumenical Relations sought to place the SSPX among other churches outside the Catholic Church--i.e., with Orthodox and Protestant churches--the Prefect of the Office of Ecclesia Dei refused to allow this, stating, "The SSPX is an internal affair within the Church."

If I repeat myself as you keep saying, it is because you and others still don't get it. SSPX is not in schism and never has been. Wishing won't make it so. Neither am I or others schismatic for attending SSPX Masses.

You write, "Lefebvre was mistaken." Surely you realize this makes no difference--even if he was mistaken, so long as he believed a State of Necessity existed, the excommunication was void.

I understand that you hold the " State of Necessity " clause as Lefebvre's loophole. But, as I have explained before, Lefebvre's loophole can, and was, trumped.This is from Canon Law 1323, the pertinent phrase: An excommunication is null and void if someone acted "by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, UNLESS, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls; That word "unless" is key here. I'll grant, for argument's sake, that Lefebvre really believed he had a reason of necessity. But that reason of necessity is voided by the "unless" clause. Because, the pope judged Lefevre's reason of necessity to be intrinsically evil, and/or harmful to souls. How do we know this? In Ecclesia Dei the pope wrote:" Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law."A grave offense against God is harmful to souls. I hope you would agree with that. Therefore, the state of necessity becomes void.

I am aware that I have explained this before. I regret that I've needed to again. I just want you to be certain that I understand your defense of Lefebvre. You should understand that I don't buy it because of the "unless" clause. That's all.