[Catholicguy]

LOL. The Excommunication stands. Please post for us the words of the Pope in which he retracts Ecclesia Dei. Echoing the personal opinions of those who succor the schism is not persuasive - except to schismatics

"But JPII failed to take into consideration the exemptions that his own Canon Law provided. Canons 1321-23 made clear that disobedience in an emergency situation accrues no penalty if the state of necessity has been sincerely evoked."

ROTFLMAO. I can't believe you posted this.

Can. 1321 §1 No one can be punished for the commission of an external violation of a law or precept unless it is gravely imputable by reason of malice or of culpability.

§2 A person who deliberately violated a law or precept is bound by the penalty prescribed in that law or precept. If, however, the violation was due to the omission of due diligence, the person is not punished unless the law or precept provides otherwise. (the Pope warned him not to consecrate Bishops and told him what the consequences would be. He did it anyways)

§3 Where there has been an external violation, imputability is presumed, unless it appears otherwise.

Can. 1322 Those who habitually lack the use of reason, even though they appeared sane when they violated a law or precept, are deemed incapable of committing an offence. (LOL I can't beleive a schismatic like you would post this in defense of the schismatic you adore. Now, personally, this is what I think may be the case. I pray it is as it would tend to render Lefebvre's perfidy not culpable. But, for you, who thinks he is a Saint and that he was the one to preserve Tradition? LOL Do you even think about what that means for your defense of schism? Good Lord. I think you prolly don't.LOL)

Can. 1323 No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept:

1° has not completed the sixteenth year of age;

(Even you, I imagine, admit he was at least 17)

2° was, without fault, ignorant of violating the law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance (LOL)

3° acted under physical force, or under the impetus of a chanceoccurrence which the person could not foresee or if foreseen could not avoid;

4° acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;

5° acted, within the limits of due moderation, in lawful self-defence or defence of another against an unjust aggressor;

6° lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the provisions of cann. 1324, §1, n. 2 and 1325; (There's your out. Quite flattering to the one chosen by God to preserve Tradition. LOL).

7° thought, through no personal fault, that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in nn. 4 or 5.

Well, that's it. That's all you got. Remember when you left before and you said you had said all you had to say? You were right. These are all the same old lies and I can see you are back to repeat them again.

Well, so much for your promise to spend time on basics and the family, huh? :)

[ultima ratio]

Study again the following precept which exempts from punishment anyone who

"4° acted under the compulsion of GRAVE FEAR, even if only relative, or by REASON OF NECESSITY or GRAVE INCONVENIENCE, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;"

You list the many exemptions, making light of them. But because many are listed does not mean an individual must fall under all that are presented. In the case of Archbishop Lefebvre, I think even you would admit that the destruction of traditional Catholicism and the traditional Mass was reason enough to inspire "grave fear", as well as "grave inconvenience". It was certainly a sufficient cause for action "by reason of necessity."

There can be no doubt that the Archbishop truly believed the Pope's frontal assault on the Econe--denying traditional consecrations and thus the ordination of seminarians trained in the traditional faith--would do irreparable "harm to souls" and to the Church in the long run. He saw the situation as critical, designed to destroy the traditional Mass, and was the result of the modernist thinking that was in ascendancy following Vatican II. The ensuing years have proven the Archbishop was right, that the Church was indeed plunged in crisis. The Pope was wrong then and he is still wrong--though he continues to dismantle Catholic tradition by appointing as bishops those who despise that tradition.

Nor is disobedience an intrinsically evil act in the way that murder or abortion is intrinsically evil--which is to say, always and everywhere a bad thing, permitting of no exception. Disobedience is obviously sometimes good. It is certainly good to disobey a command to do what would be harmful to souls or to the Catholic faith. In fact, the precept to do good and to avoid evil trumps any man-made canons, even those of Canon Law. It is the very essence of God's own law--and renders anyone inculpable who follows it above all else. This is why Canon Law itself provides an exception for those who are inculpable.

Nor does the mere fact that it is a pope who commands something make a command good. Popes may command what is wrong like any other mortal--unless precluded from error by Divine Protection. But as the First Vatican Council decreed, such protection is only granted when a pope speaks ex cathedra on faith and morals. This was certainly not the condition under which the Pope commanded the Archbishop not to consecrate. It is true the Pope followed this with the Ecclesia Dei letter setting up an indult seeming to respect traditional Catholicism. But at best this was a cover for the opposite intention to destroy that tradition. This is shown by the fact that it was created after-the-fact. Before the consecrations the Pope had offered no such palliative to those who wished to follow Tradition. Nor has he exerted pressure on bishops since then to allow the indult. On the contrary, in recent years he has dealt with traditionalists far more harshly than with the most extreme, even heretical, modernists.

Finally, it should be remembered that schism is not disobedience. Schism involves a denial of papal supremacy. The Archbishop disobeyed for good reason and to protect the faith. To impugn he was therefore denying papal authority is an assumption that is unwarranted by the facts.