*Post 110 proves you wrong - not that it will ever deter you from make the same "points" endlessly.
2.2 THE EXCOMMUNICATION AND SCHISM OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE On June 9, 1988, Pope John Paul II replied to Lefebvre's letter of June 2, exhorting him not to proceed with the illicit consecration of bishops, and reiterating the position of the Holy See as follows: In the letter you sent me you appear to reject all that was agreed on in the previous conversations, since you clearly manifest your intention to "provide the means yourself to continue your work,"
Actually, LeFebvre stated that they were not in agreement because the communication between the two parties hadn't been effective. The language of the Curia (ambiguity and duplicity) was not the language of LeFebvre (clarity).
From the above letter Archbishop Lefebvre was clearly forewarned by the Holy Father that he lacked the necessary pontifical mandate to proceed with his episcopal consecrations, and in so doing he would violate both the norms of canon law as well as the Protocol agreement.
"Norms" as if JPII's suicidal course for the Church has the intellectual honesty to call anything "norms". The "norms" don't apply in a crisis.
Furthermore, the Holy Father confirmed that his mind in this matter had been clearly stated by Cardinal Ratzinger in his letter of May 30th.
So? That just speaks ill for the state of JPII's mind.
This would not deter Lefebvre from proceeding with his press conference on June 15, 1988, in order to publicly announce the names of the four candidates he intended to consecrate to episcopacy on June 30, 1988.
Good. Thanks be to God.
Having been forewarned by both Cardinal Ratzinger and the Holy Father that the mandate necessary to proceed with the episcopal consecrations was lacking, and in light of this press conference announcing the four candidates, on behalf of the Congregation for Bishops Cardinal Gantin issued the following monition on June 17, 1988:
Since on June 15th, 1988 you stated that you intended to ordain four priests to the episcopate without having obtained the mandate of the Supreme Pontiff as required by canon 1013 of the Code of Canon Law, I myself convey to you this public canonical warning, confirming that if you should carry out your intention as stated above, you yourself and also the bishops ordained by you shall incur ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See in accordance with canon 1382.
Schism isn't mentioned? hmmmm.....
The latter part of the monition simply reiterates what is legislated in c. 1382, in that without a pontifical mandate one who consecrates a bishop, as well as those who receive consecration, are automatically excommunicated by the law itself.
Obviously with exceptions. It's the canon law that states it. The Pope can't pick and choose the realities which apply to Canon Law, either it all does (which mitigates and exonerates LeFebvre) or none of it matters and it's just the rantings of a an unjust and evil Pope.
Having incurred such an excommunication, it can only be lifted by the Apostolic See.
Not having incurred one in reality also requires a correction of a future Pope on the last disaster. Maybe B16, maybe someone after him. Maybe God himself on judgement day.
However, the monition from the Congregation for Bishops did not deter Lefebvre, and on June 30, 1988, he followed through with his threat and consecrated four candidates from the SSPX to the episcopacy without papal mandate.
Yep. That's a shame that the Pope was so obstinate in his hatred for tradition. You can see how God quickly punished him right after '88. The long, slow deterioration of all his gifts. All the things that JPII thought would carry him in bringing his lousy message to the faithful were taken back by God.
A serious act of disobedience and violation of ecclesiastical law, Lefebvre had now consummated the growing SSPX schism from Rome, automatically incurring excommunication.
False.
Subsequently, the automatic excommunication against Lefebvre was declared by Cardinal Gantin in a decree from the Congregation for Bishops dated July 1, 1988, the day after the illicit consecrations.
Again, so what? Gantin was just another internal enemy of the Church.
Acting in his official capacity on behalf of the pope, Cardinal Gantin solemnly declares:
Actually he was abusing his office as JPII did.
Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatic act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1, and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law...
He just pulled "schism" right out of thin air on that one. A completely irrelevant designation but one that is good for calumny. This is idiocy and an embarassment to come from the Vatican. Eventually a strong Pope will condemn this lunacy.
Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Archbishop Lefebvre, and Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See.
Factually in error and therefore, invalid.
As is clearly visible from the decree of the Congregation for Bishops, having consecrated bishops without a valid pontifical mandate and against express wishes of the Holy See, Lefebvre automatically incurred excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
False. As demonstrated above. I have to utterly laugh at these fools who type "clearly" in order to deceive.
Yet against this decree, Lefebvre's apologists would argue "that the above decree is not the sentence of a judge, but rather a declaration that Canons 1364 and 1382 apply."(85) That the excommunication is latae sententiae rather than ferendae sententiae is completely irrelevant in establishing the validity of Lefebvre's excommunication. As c. 331 states, "by virtue of his office, [the Roman Pontiff] has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power."
No one denies it. But that doesn't address that the Pope was wrong and the excommunications were intrinsically invalid. He's freely exercising his power but he's also free to abuse it and be legitimately resisted.
With regards to c. 1382, the Roman Pontiff has utilized his supreme legislative power to establish by law a latae sententiae excommunication for those who consecrate a bishop without papal mandate.
And he established a law mitigating those circumstances.
In accordance with c. 17, such an ecclesiastical law must be understood according to the mind of the legislator, and in accordance with c. 16 §1, such a law is authentically interpreted by the legislator.
"Authentically" just means that the Pope has the right to rule on the laws. Not that they are infallible or always just.
In the case of Archbishop Lefebvre, both the legislator's mind and interpretation regarding c. 1382 were clearly and personally communicated to Lefebvre by the Supreme Legislator previous to Lefebvre's violation of c. 1382.
Again, so what? It's LeFebvre's intention which is paramount in his acts and his culpability.
Furthermore, by the very fact Lefebvre proceeded publicly in his act of disobedience means his violation of c. 1013 was external,
As were his intentions publicly stated. But JPII and his cronies (or masters) decided to ignore that part against all truth.
With regards to the penalties imposed by c. 1364 §1, this norm establishes that "a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of can. 194 §1,
But LeFebvre was not a schismatic. Period. The question doesn't rest on schism. It rests on a crisis provoked by this Pope in particular and Paul VI. This idiot wants to ignore that though.
n. 2; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §1, nn. 1, 2 and 3."
As far as the penalties outlined in c. 1336, these are additional expiatory penalties that may be imposed, and thus are not directly applicable to the present controversy as neither Lefebvre nor the bishops illicitly consecrated have seriously attempted to reconcile their schism.
Since there is no schism.
On the other hand, c. 194 §1, 2o provides that "one who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from communion with the Church" is "removed from ecclesiastical office by virtue of the law itself."
Which LeFebvre never did. That was Gantin's and or JPII's lies/errors whichever. The end result is that JPII was wrong on the facts.
However, c. 194 §2 legislates that the "removal mentioned in [c. 194 §1] nn. 2 and 3 can be insisted upon only if it is established by declaration of the competent authority."
"Competent" opens up a whole world of possibilities.
As the penalties mentioned in c. 1364 §1 apply to Lefebvre, he incurred an additional latae sententiae excommunication for the offense of schism.
Again, straw man. There was no schism.
C. 751 defines schism as "the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him."
LeFebvre did neither.
Lefebvre's act of consecrating bishops without papal mandate was a refusal of submission to the express will of the Supreme Pontiff.
No it wasn't. It was disobedience to a Pope that was systematically allowing or promoting the destruction of the Catholic Church.
As the penalty for schism was declared by the competent authority in the form of the Holy See, by virtue of the law itself Lefebvre was automatically removed from all ecclesiastical office.(86)
Inaccurate and therefore invalid. No schism, no application of that penalty.
Against the declaration of schism, however, Lefebvre's followers have argued that his consecration of bishops without papal mandate was not an act of withdrawal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or from the communion with the Church, but merely an act of disobedience.
Primarily an act for the preservations of souls.
In citing one canonical study, Lefebvre's followers maintain that "schism, defined in Canon 751, means refusal of subjection to the Supreme Pontiff or refusal of communion with other members of the Church. A mere act of disobedience to a superior does not imply denial that the superior holds office or has authority."(87)
Absolutely.
The above argument fails to take into account four variables relevant to Lefebvre's consecration of bishops against the express will of the Supreme Pontiff.
Let's take a look-see.
First, c. 751 does not specify that one must deny the superior's possession of authority to incur schism, but rather that one must refuse to submit to this authority.
It also doesn't say that the Pope is to be obeyed for a command that will harm the Church.
Secondly, the superior to whom Lefebvre refused submission was the Supreme Pontiff who possesses full ordinary power and universal jurisdiction.
Again. No one denies that. So what? "Superiors can be rebuked even by their inferiors." This is the constant teaching of the Church.
Thirdly, the consecration of bishops against the express will of the Supreme Pontiff is no mere act of disobedience, but an act which carries by virtue of the law the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication -- penalties which, when Lefebvre made public his intention to consecrate bishops without papal mandate, were reiterated to him personally by no less than the Supreme Pontiff and two Cardinal Prefects of curial congregations.
Compounding the error/malfeasance of the Pope does not change LeFebvre's duty to resist a Pope to the face that does not walk uprightly with the Gospel.
Finally, in light of Lefebvre's express intention in consecrating bishops without papal mandate, that of providing for the continuation of the SSPX until Rome adopts his position, Lefebvre was not carrying out an isolated act of disobedience, but rather he intended to perpetuate a situation of disobedience for a prolonged period of time.
That's no argument against LeFebvre. His actions were calibrated towards a solution to a continuing plague within the Church. It's as if saying, "Not only did LeFebvre have the antidote to the disease. He manufactured some against the wishes of the Pope. And he intended on innoculating as many people as he could."
Hence, in light of the above variables, Lefebvre's act of consecrating bishops without papal mandate cannot reasonably be dismissed as a simple act of disobedience to a superior.
The only thing unreasonable is the lack of logic that this bonehead tries to pass off as "clear thinking"
Therefore, an objective canonical analysis of Lefebvre's situation illustrates that he incurred a latae sententiae excommunication by virtue of the law both for the act of consecrating bishops without papal mandate, and for carrying out this act against the express will of the Supreme Pontiff as an act of schism.
Hah! Hardly objective. The bias is relevant because the context of LeFebvre's actions are ignored. The Pope was at fault. He was a disaster and LeFebvre was God's solution. Just as St. Paul kicked St. Peter's tail over at Antioch. Just as the bishops as a whole refused Paschal II's demand that they vacate their sees for the state to fill them, Just as John XX spouted heresy from the pulpit, Just as bishop Grossteste resisted and refused the nepotism of the Pope (Innocent IV? )
Thus the canonical arguments proposed by the Lefebvrite movement against the validity of the excommunications cannot be sustained in light of the Church's canonical jurisprudence.
Well. That was easy to debunk. I haven't even finished digesting my breakfast. I didn't think I would have enough room to chew up this little snack, yet here I am picking my teeth with the bones. :)
*The lying sspx and its lying liars defending the sspx lies will try and lie the obvious doesn't mean what it means.
I just showed you the obvious. Learn from it.