Replies

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.

Can you provide the document from Vatican I that says the Pope is only infallible on faith and morals when he speaks "ex cathedra". My understanding of that term is only when he pronounces as official doctrine/teaching something that has never been a formal,written part of the "deposit of faith", must he pronounce "ex cathedra".Examples are the Immaculate Conceoption and the Assumption.

Issues of faith and morals that are developed or expressed in a way that is more understandable to persons living in the prevailing culture are teachings wherein his infallibility is in effect.These will never contradict Scripture or Tradition,they merely clarify,illuminate,elaborate,refine or emphasize a heretofore lesser known facet of the Truth.

Good to see you back,with you and Catholic Guy gone for a while things were getting pretty dull.However,with both of you back,there are times when I yearn for dullness.(o_-)sara