[ultima ratio]

Don't you get tired of posting such malarky? It is so wrong-headed it's impossible to know where to begin.

1. The "excommunication" is not valid because Lefebvre did not commit a schismatic act and resorted properly to his right to act in a State of Necessity as provided by Canon Law, the Pope's own canon.

2. Vatican II was not a dogmatic council. Even Rome tacitly admitted this by permitting many transgressions against many of the precepts of Vatican II--such as its insistance on the use of Gregorian Chant and the Latin language in the liturgy.

3. The present ordinary magisterium is not infallible when it departs from traditional teachings. Rome is not protected by the Holy Spirit when it presents for acceptance by the faithful novel teachings, especially when it is clear these contradict pre-conciliar papal teachings which ARE infallible.

[St.Chuck]

The "excommunication" is not valid because Lefebvre did not commit a schismatic act and resorted properly to his right to act in a State of Necessity as provided by Canon Law, the Pope's own canon.

Does your obsession with the "state of necessity" have anything to do with your abandonment of the indult mass? Do you consider yourself acting in a State of Necessity? Do you bring it up day in and day out to justify your own behavior?