Replies

You are hair-splitting at this point. The fact of the matter is that John Paul II excommunicated Lefebvre after the latter ordained four bishops in open defiance of the Pope's order not to do so.

I don't see how you can justify Lefebvre's illegal ordination of these men as a matter of "necessity" or of "incupable ignorance." He had been warned not to do what he did and he did it anyway.

Finally, although another pope could lift the excommunication, that does not mean that the excommunication is invalid or unjust--for example if these men repent of their sin. Indeed, unless these four schismatic bishops show some glimmer of repentance, which they have not done, it is doubtful that the excommunication will ever be lifted.

You are hair-splitting at this point.

I knew you were going to say that, that's why I said in post #84: "Seems like I'm splitting hairs, I know, but it's an important distinction to make, as most I've met believe it happened the way you say it happened."

The real hairsplitting here is to gleefully wrap one's self in one Canon perceived to consign the Archbishop to the fires of Gehenna, while completely ignoring the very next Canon, which does, in fact, exonerate him.

The fact of the matter is that John Paul II excommunicated Lefebvre after the latter ordained four bishops in open defiance of the Pope's order not to do so.

That's not a fact, just your version of an event based on your ignorant understanding of Canon law. The intentions; the mind and heart of an individual are subjective - known only to the individual and to God. The Canons are what they are. Even the supposed "decree" itself stated that the schismatic intent was "implied." Not evident. Not manifest. Not explicit. "Implied." Is it "valid and just" to charge someone with a crime based on the mindset implied by their actions? You're a "steadfast conservative," you tell me. The truth of the Archbishop's intentions is out there for anyone who really wants to know. He wrote and spoke about it publicly, over and over, often and at length, before and leading up to the consecrations.

I don't see how you can justify Lefebvre's illegal ordination of these men as a matter of "necessity" or of "incupable ignorance." He had been warned not to do what he did and he did it anyway.

Whether or not there was/is an actual state of necessity is actually completely irrelevant to this specific issue. If the Archbishop thought there was a state of necessity, regardless of whether he was correct or incorrect in thinking so, no penalty is incurred. So says Canon Law, in black and white. If no penalty is incurred, then there is no schism, and no excommunication.

Look, suppose you woke up one Sunday morning and felt like you were going to hurl, so you stayed home from Mass. As the morning went on, you felt better. You never did blow chunks and as time passed you realized that you could have made it to Mass if you had gone as you wanted to do. Have you sinned? Of course not. Why? Because you believed that you were going to honk and didn't want to do it in your own lap in the car or in front of a couple hundred people. You did not commit a sin, not even a venial sin. Why? Because you sincerely believed that you were too ill. In hindsight, you weren't actually too ill, but you thought you were. Even though you were wrong in your assessment of your health, no penalty is incurred.

Finally, although another pope could lift the excommunication, that does not mean that the excommunication is invalid or unjust

If another Pope nullified the excommunications, it would in fact mean that they were unjust and invalid. I'm not saying this is going to happen anytime soon, maybe never, but it could happen. That possibility was at least being considered by Rome based on the negotiation discussions which continued after the lifting of the decree was set forth by the SSPX as a prerequisite to continue discussions.

--for example if these men repent of their sin. Indeed, unless these four schismatic bishops show some glimmer of repentance, which they have not done, it is doubtful that the excommunication will ever be lifted.

If there's no schism, then there's no excommunication. If there's no excommuncation, then there's no sin. If there's no sin, there's no need for repentance.