No State of Emergency?

Christ or Chaos ^ | MARCH 6, 2005 | Thomas A. Droleskey

[Land of the Irish]

MARCH 6, 2005
No State of Emergency? by Thomas A. Droleskey There has been a great deal of "discussion" lately concerning whether a State of Emergency exists within the Church that justified the episcopal consecrations done by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988 and the existence of chapels administered by priests who have separated themselves from diocesan structures that are in the hands of unbelievers and apostates. Some very important points in defense of the State of Emergency can be found in Defending Catholic Tradition Without Fear of the Consequences, which was posted on this site on March 4, 2005. I stand by the points made by Fathers Zigrang, Smith, and Perez, thanking Our Lady for the manly courage in defense of the fullness of the Catholic Faith that they have exhibited in these truly unparalleled times. A few developments in the past record provide further evidence that the Church is indeed in a real state of emergency in her human elements. Consider the fact that Father Edward Schillebeeckx, a product of Dutch Modernism who was a peritus at the Second Vatican Council, declared that "God has no son," contending that Saint Joseph was the "natural father" of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. This is abject heresy that consists in a denial of basic elements in of the Faith found in the Apostles' Creed and reaffirmed by various dogmatic councils throughout the Church's history. Has Schillebeeckx come to this "conclusion" in recent years? Or did he hold this heresy when he was serving as an "expert" adviser at the Second Vatican Council? Will he be denounced for this heresy by any bishop in the world? Will his books be banned from Catholic universities and colleges and seminaries and theological "update" programs for religious educators? Or will Father Schillebeeckx simply be allowed to die a Catholic priest in "good standing" after having spent his life's work trying to destroy belief in the truths contained in the Deposit of Faith? Among the doctrines denied by the statement that "God has no son" and that "Saint Joseph is the natural father" of Our Lord are the following: 1) The Blessed Trinity. 2) The Incarnation. 3) The perpetual virginity of Our Lady. Father Schillebeeckx, 85, has loads of disciples and advocates in Catholic universities and colleges and seminaries and chancery offices. How ironic it is that Father Schillebeeckx's work will be hailed when he dies by many of these disciples while the courage of Archbishop Lefebvre and the likes of the late Father Frederick Schell and Father Gommar DePauw and the priests who have left the Novus Ordo structure recently is held in contempt as exemplary of a "schismatic" mentality. Oh, no, there is no State of Emergency when a Vatican II "expert" can deny the Word became Flesh and dwelt among us, is there? Father Schillebeeckx is far from alone in the pantheon of Vatican II periti who had a Modernist agenda. The late Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, who was a professor of Dogmatic Theology at Saint Bernard's Seminary in Rochester, New York, before teaching at The Catholic University of America, resigned from the faculty of Catholic University rather than teach the "gospel" of "religious freedom" that had been promoted by another Vatican II peritus, the late Father John Courtney Murray, whose behind-the-scenes machinations, especially with the American bishops, helped Dignitatis Humanae to approved by the fathers of the Council in 1965. The late Father Karl Rahner, whose theology on the Eucharist was so problematic that the late Father John A. Hardon, S.J., refused to endorse a book about Eucharistic adoration that relied heavily upon Rahner, had many disciples among the Vatican II periti. Rahner himself continues to exercise his Modernist influence upon Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (who has written that Vatican II was a counter-syllabus of errors). And while Father Hans Kung was removed from his Chair of Theology at Tubingen University in 1979 and declared no longer to be able to teach as a Catholic theologian at Catholic institutions, he was a Vatican II peritus who remains in good standing as a priest. The list can go on and on and on. The influence of those steeped in error and heresy continued after the Council concluded its work in 1965. Six liberal Protestants advised the Consilium that devised the synthetic concoction that is the Novus Ordo Missae. Defenders of the late Annibable Bugnini, the Secretary of the Consilium, assert that the Protestants could only "observe" the proceedings and not make any actual contributions as the Consilium did its official work. As Father Romano Tommassi has demonstrated in his groundbreaking research of the minutes of the Consilium and in the notes of the some of the Protestant "observers," the Protestants made their contributions during coffee breaks, observing as the very observations they made "unofficially" got themselves incorporated into the actual minutes of the proceedings by bishops all too willing to do their bidding. The devastation of the Catholic Faith that has resulted from the influence of "advisers" who subscribe to various tenets of Modernism is plain for all who have the grace to see it. Any number of solid, scholarly works (The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, Iota Unum, In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, The Great Facade, the late Michael Davies' pamphlet on Dignitatis Humanae, among many others) discusses the influence exercised by the leading Modernists of the mid-Twentieth Century on the Second Vatican and its aftermath. It should come as no surprise, therefore, when a Vatican II peritus can deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Lord and deny the perpetual virginity of His Most Blessed Mother that diocesan ordinaries can deny doctrines themselves and/or attempt to silence their priests from speaking out when innocent human beings are being threatened with an unjust and immoral execution by means of starvation and dehydration. As noted before, the situation we face in the Church today is simply without precedent. When has it ever been the case that a prominent theologian can deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and remain in good standing as a Catholic priest? When has it ever been the case that a the cardinal prefect of a curial congregation, in this case one-time Vatican II peritus Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (a disciple of Karl Rahner and Hans von Balthaszar, who believed in the heresy of universal salvation and the non-eternity of Hell, stating that Our Lord and Satan would be "reconciled" in the end), has consecrated a man, in this case Father Bruno Forte, to the episcopate after he had written that Our Lord's Resurrection was a myth? (See the most recent issue of The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture and an article in the February 15 issue The Remnant written by Christopher A. Ferrara.) These things are without precedent, and they lead directly to the appointment of men as diocesan ordinaries who are Modernists and thus enemies of the Faith (see Enemies of Christ in Shepherds' Clothing). To wit, Bishop Robert N. Lynch, who has been the subject of numerous commentaries on this site in the past two weeks ( see particularly Defiantly Unrepentant), has issued an edict forbidding any of his diocesan priests from participating in a Rally and Prayer Vigil that will be held on Saturday, March 12, 2005, in front of the Woodspice Hospice in Pinellas Park, Florida, where Terri Schindler-Schiavo is held hostage as she awaits the death sentence that hangs over her innocent head. One angry woman from Florida wrote that I had mischaracterized Bishop Lynch's position, that there are no contradictions between what he has said and what the Pope has stated in reiterating the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church that the provision of food and water is always considered to be ordinary, not extraordinary are, and cannot be withdrawn, noting that one can never take into consideration probabilities of recovery or financial and psychological factors to justify what is an act of "euthanasia by omission." The inability of this woman to see that Bishop Lynch is at odds with the patrimony of the Catholic Church is the exact product of the murkiness and ambiguity that are the trademarks of the ethos of conciliarism. Once again, here is what Bishop Robert N. Lynch wrote on August 12, 2003: Proper care of our lives requires that we seek necessary medical care from others but we are not required to use every possible remedy in every circumstance. We are obliged to preserve our own lives, and help others preserve theirs, by use of means that have a reasonable hope of sustaining life without imposing unreasonable burdens on those we seek to help, that is, on the patient and his or her family and community. In general, we are only required to use ordinary means that do not involve an excessive burden, for others or for our ourselves. What may be too difficult for some may not be for others. Our Catholic Church has traditionally viewed medical treatment as excessively burdensome if it is “too painful, too damaging to the patient's bodily self and functioning, too psychologically repugnant to the patient, too suppressive of the patient's mental life, or too expensive.” [cf. “Life, Death and Treatment of Dying Patients: Pastoral Statement of the Catholic Bishops of Florida, 1989] Bishop Lynch is plainly stating that the administration of food and water can be viewed as "medical care" that is beyond the ordinary and that psychological and financial factors may be taken into consideration when deciding whether to start or maintain such "medical" care. Here is what Pope John Paul II said on these points on March 20, 2004: The obligation to provide the "normal care due to the sick in such cases" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Iura et Bona, p. IV) includes, in fact, the use of nutrition and hydration (cf. Pontifical Council "Cor Unum", Dans le Cadre, 2, 4, 4; Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers, Charter of Health Care Workers, n. 120). The evaluation of probabilities, founded on waning hopes for recovery when the vegetative state is prolonged beyond a year, cannot ethically justify the cessation or interruption of minimal care for the patient, including nutrition and hydration. Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their withdrawal. In this sense it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and willingly, true and proper euthanasia by omission. In this regard, I recall what I wrote in the Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, making it clear that "by euthanasia in the true and proper sense must be understood an action or omission which by its very nature and intention brings about death, with the purpose of eliminating all pain"; such an act is always "a serious violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person" (n. 65). Besides, the moral principle is well known, according to which even the simple doubt of being in the presence of a living person already imposes the obligation of full respect and of abstaining from any act that aims at anticipating the person's death. Social pressures cannot prevail over general principles 5. Considerations about the "quality of life", often actually dictated by psychological, social and economic pressures, cannot take precedence over general principles. First of all, no evaluation of costs can outweigh the value of the fundamental good which we are trying to protect, that of human life. Moreover, to admit that decisions regarding man's life can be based on the external acknowledgment of its quality, is the same as acknowledging that increasing and decreasing levels of quality of life, and therefore of human dignity, can be attributed from an external perspective to any subject, thus introducing into social relations a discriminatory and eugenic principle. Bishop Lynch's August 12, 2003, statement is irreconcilable with Pope John Paul II's reiteration of fundamental Catholic moral principles on March 20, 2004. Bishop Lynch's statement of March 1, 2004, that Michael Schiavo alone will determine what happens to the wife to whom he has been wantonly and publicly unfaithful cannot be reconciled with the February 24, 2005, statement of Renato Cardinal Martino, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, that Mrs. Schiavo's feeding and hydration tubes must remain in place and that her death as a result of their unjust and immoral removal would be a step forward for legalized euthanasia in the United States of America. I would venture to guess that Father Edward Schillebeeckx would be more welcomed to speak in the Diocese of Saint Petersburg, Florida, than would Cardinal Martino. Indeed, as Bishop Robert N. Lynch has banned his own priests from even preaching about the subject of Terri Schindler-Schiavo it is more than likely that he would attempt to prevent Cardinal Martino from doing so if he had the opportunity to appeal for Mrs. Schiavo's life next Saturday in front of her hospice in Pinellas Park. The inability to see how Bishop Lynch's positions are incompatible and irreconcilable with the reiteration of Catholic teaching by the Holy Father and Cardinal Martino is really part and parcel of the triumph of the conciliarist ethos. Ambiguity and murkiness in doctrine produced muddle-headedness and emotionalism, making people prone to overlook the simple fact that two mutually contradictory statements cannot both be true simultaneously. The Novus Ordo Missae itself enshrines this ambiguity and murkiness, as I point out in G.I.R.M. Warfare. Many Catholics will fall victim to a steady dose of this, finding it difficulty to use the faculty of reason in a logical manner to come to the simple conclusion that there has been and continues to be a revolution going on against the perennial teachings of the Catholic Church for the past four and one-half decades. An inability to see the revolution that the devil has launched against the true so as to confuse the lion's share of Catholics and to try to dispirit those who understand the revolution for what it is spills over into the civil realm. If the plain contradictions between Bishop Robert N. Lynch's words and the consistent teachings of the Catholic Church that have been reiterated generally by Pope John Paul II and in a particular way with direct reference to the case of Mrs. Terri Schindler-Schiavo by Cardinal Manner cannot be seen by practicing, pious Catholics, then it is easy for these same people to overlook the contradictions in the words of those who they they are "pro-life" but who in fact support baby-killing in some instances and who fund the chemical murders of millions of babies here and around the world. A reader wrote to me yesterday, March 5, 2005, to ask for my "sources" for the information provided in A Matter of God's Sovereignty that the Bush administration funds the chemical abortions of millions of babies in this country and around the world. The reader was not taking issue with my contention, only noting that she had never seen this before. My initial reaction was one of exasperation as I, among others, have been pointing out these incontrovertible facts for a long, long time. However, the reader had a point. After all, why should people see through the wiles of career politicians when they accept quite blithely the contradictions that exist between the ethos of conciliarism and the authentic, immutable Tradition of the Catholic Church? Thus, I present a brief excerpt from a recent article of mine in The Remnant, which comes from a list of facts from the American Life League, posted at www.all.org on December 17, 2004 (facts that have been cited endlessly by yours truly and a few others but appear to make no impression on those who want to be in the political equivalent of the tooth fairy): BUSH'S PRO-LIFE RECORD: Some people argue that President George W. Bush is enthusiastically pro-life. President Bush's record speaks for itself: · Bush appointed an almost wholly pro-abortion cabinet. His "pro-life" cabinet members during his first term include former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson at HHS, who supports human embryo research, and Attorney General John Ashcroft. · Bush broke his campaign promise and authorized funding for human embryonic stem cell research. The supposedly "narrow" policy is managed by Thompson and has expanded, just as he supported it in Wisconsin. · Bush's appointed National Institute of Health director, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, is a pioneer in embryonic stem cell research. · As a consequence of Thompson's appointment, HHS has done nothing about the highly irregular approval of RU-486 during the Clinton administration. · President Bush appointed pro-aborts to his bioethics council, which produced a split opinion on human cloning stating the commission could not come to a consensus on the "moral status of the human embryo." His handpicked bioethicists confirmed the ludicrous claim of Roe v. Wade that scientific and ethical experts cannot come to consensus on when life begins. Though this is absurd in any authentic representation of science or ethics, it has allowed the administration political cover behind their so-called "experts." · Despite his well-publicized statement that he was completely opposed to all human cloning, Bush blocked a vote on the Brownback/Landreiu amendment in the Senate to ban the patenting of human embryos. · The Bush administration's attorney was on the wrong side of the NOW v. Scheidler case, intervening on behalf of the plaintiffs in the racketeering suit against Joseph Scheidler and other pro-life activists. The U.S. Solicitor General agreed that there were grounds for considering clinic blockades a form of extortion. · Despite his statements regarding the sanctity of human life, Bush positively requires a legal freedom of killing preborns when the children are conceived in rape, incest, or when their mothers' lives are allegedly in danger due to their pregnancy (which is medically never the case). · On the subject of contraceptives and abortifacients, Bush has maintained millions in funding for Planned Parenthood, and has signed hundreds of millions of dollars of funding for abortifacient chemicals worldwide. His Mexico City policy permits such funding to go to government family planning programs that promote abortion as long as they "segregate" the funds. In both 2002 and 2003, the Bush administration approved USAID population control funding of $446.5 million, higher than the $425.0 million Clinton approved for 2001. · Bush approved an expanded Medicaid coverage of abortifacients in New York. · His AIDS package provides $15 billion for potential payments to overseas organizations that promote abortion including the International Planned Parenthood Federation. · Bush's White House counsel (and attorney general nominee), Alberto Gonzales, is being whispered to be "on the short list" as a possible nominee for the Supreme Court should there be a vacancy. As a Texas Supreme Court justice, Gonzales voted to authorize abortion for teenagers without parental involvement, and other rulings during his tenure on the court raise doubts about how he would rule on life-related matters if he were confirmed as a U.S. Supreme Court justice. · Bush's 2004 budget request for Title X of the Public Health Service Act, is $264 million, or $11 million more than the program was appropriated during Bill Clinton's last year in office. Planned Parenthood alone expended nearly $59 million from this program in fiscal year 2001. · Bush's 2004 budget request for international population control programs/USAID is $425 million, plus an additional $25 million set aside for the U.N. Population Fund if it becomes eligible for U.S. funding. During the last year Clinton was in office, USAID population control programs were appropriated $425 million. (Source: American Life League Communique, December 17, 2004.) I have written numerous commentaries on some of these matters. Two of them, "Of Slaves and Babies" and "True Justice for a Pro-Life Hero," appeared on the Seattle Catholic website in December of 2002 and February of 2003, respectively. Facts are facts. Others gather facts and report them. I try to disseminate them and to help readers understand them clearly from the perspective of the Catholic Faith, which is the point of our forthcoming book, "Restoring Christ as the King of All Nations," which is now in the editing process. It has been the lack of a clear witness to the Catholic Faith as a result of the ambiguities and novelties of the conciliarist ethos from popes on down to parish priests that has confused the faithful so much that they seek refuge in the delusion that career politicians are our friends when this is not the case at all. Indeed, all of the fuss made this past week about the efforts of United States Ambassador to the United Nations Ellen Sauerbrey to reaffirm that the 1995 Beijing Conference on Women did not create an "international right" to abortion borders on the absolute absurd when you consider the fact that the government of the United States, starting with the administration of President Richard M. Nixon in 1970, has funded chemical abortions all around the world. Anyone who believes that the government of the United States is squarely on the side of stopping abortion is not familiar with the facts. In the midst of all of this confusion and disarray, both ecclesiastically and civilly, we never grow discouraged. The Catholic Church is the true Church founded by the God-Man upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. The jaws of Hell will never prevail against her. She will last until the end of time. True, the devil is having a field day right now with the Church in her human elements. The final victory, though, belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary once Russia is consecrated by some pope with all of the world's bishops. The Social Reign of Christ the King will be ushered in anew. The errors of Russia, which are the errors of Modernity (starting with the Protestant Revolt) in the world and Modernism in the Church, will cease. There will be an period of peace. Steadfast in the faith, ever desirous to make reparation for our own many sins, especially in this season of Lent, by offering all of our sacrifices and prayers and sufferings as the consecrated slaves of Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, we keep Our Lord company in His Real Presence as we walk the Via Dolorosa that the Church in her human elements is journeying on at present. We seek out the sure refuge of Tradition and we continue to maintain the supernatural virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity in all of our efforts to plant a few seeds here and there for the restoration of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition as normative in the life of the Church and for the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Mary our Immaculate Queen in the world. Our Lady, Help of Christians, pray for us. Saints Pereptua and Felitas, pray for us. Blessed Laetere Sunday to you all. P.S. In your charity, I would ask you to pray for the repose of the soul of my late mother, Norma Florence Red Fox Droleskey, who would have turned eighty-four today had she not died on March 18, 1982, twelve days after her sixty-first birthday. My mother was born out of wedlock to a woman who put her up for adoption. Her chances of making it out of the womb today would have been pretty negligible. A whole host of social workers would have tried to convince my grandmother, Ruth Coomer, whom my mother never met in this mortal life, to kill her twins. (My mother's twin brother died in infancy after they had been adopted in Kansas City, Missouri, by the vaudevillian performer, Chief William Red Fox and his wife.) We gave our own daughter a third name, Norma, after honoring Saint Lucy and Our Lady in order to remember all children who are at risk in what should be the safest place on earth: their mothers' wombs. Thank you for your prayers for my mother's soul. Please pray also for her mother, Ruth Coomer, with whom I hope and pray daily that she has had a happy reunion in eternity.

---

© Copyright 2004, Christ or Chaos, Inc. All rights reserved.

[Land of the Irish]

Ping

[JesseHousman]

bttt

[ultima ratio]

excerpt from They Think They've Won-Part VII

______________________________________________________

THE TACIT REPUDIATION OF HUMANI GENERIS

Under Pope John Paul II's pontificate, the other founding fathers of the "new theology" were able, already in their lifetime, to bask in their share of (the modernistic) glory. On February 2, 1983, Pope John Paul II bestowed the cardinal's hat on De Lubac who was then almost eighty years of age. This papal action constituted a de facto rehabilitation, absolutely unjustified, as well as an unjustifiable repudiation of Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis. In the Catholic world, this was taken as a certain sign of the new pope's "new" theological direction. On January 7, 1983, Present, a Parisian daily (newspaper) made the following pointed observation:

"We have often wondered for what reason Fr. Wojtyla, who had studied theology in Rome under Pope Pius XII, had, subsequently, almost never referred to that great pope's doctrinal teachings. The explanation lies simply in the fact that he had theologically chosen to follow De Lubac (one of the "fathers" of the "new theology") rather than Pius XII. This fact is more readily understood at the present time."

On the occasion of the venerated Card. De Lubac's death, L'Osservatore Romano (May 9, 1991) made public, on its first page, the contents of two telegrams sent by His Holiness John Paul II: the first one, to Card. Lustiger, Archbishop of Paris, and the other one to the Superior General of the Company of Jesus (Jesuits).

The first telegram is as follows:

"Recalling the long and faithful service accomplished by this theologian who succeeded in collecting and saving the best of Catholic tradition in his meditations on the Church and the modern world, I fervently beg Christ the Savior to grant him the reward of His eternal peace."

And the second telegram:

"For many years, I had greatly appreciated the vast culture, spirit of self sacrifice, and intellectual integrity, which have all served to make of this model religious an outstanding servant of the Church, particularly on the occasion of Vatican Council II."

There followed, on page 6, the deceased's curriculum vitae prepared by L'Osservatore Romano's editorial staff which, on the 8th and 11th of September, went right on celebrating the memory of the "father" of "new theology," previously condemned by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani Generis.

While alive, Hans von Balthasar was glorified by Pope John Paul II. And not only he, but also the lady whom he had described as being his theological "better half" Adrienne von Speyr. In 1985, with the publicity being provided by L'Osservatore Romano, a symposium was held in Rome on Adrienne the "mystic," and Von Balthasar in Premessa, and Il Nostro Compito, made it publicly known that this event constituted the realization of a "desire expressed in 1983 by the Holy Father." Von Balthasar himself was promoted to cardinal (June 1988) but died on the very eve of being awarded his "well-deserved honorary distinction" (Card. Ratzinger). However, Ratzinger himself declared in his funeral oration:

"That which the Pope wished to express by this gesture of gratitude and acknowledgment or, rather, of honor, remains valid."

How can we blame him (for publicly declaring the unvarnished truth of the matter)? Nevertheless, it 'is' a fact that this gesture of gratitude, or rather, of honor, on the part of the Pope, has been addressed to the pseudo-theology of a pseudo-theologian who has wearily trudged "along the path of sheer personal fancy, of error, and of heresy". (cf. Courrier de Rome, 147 (337) June 1993; for Cardinal Ratzinger's homily, see H.W. von Balthasar, Figura e opera, p.541).

[ultima ratio]

Pius XII on the New Theology which insisted all truth was continually evolving and is never fixed: "if we were to embrace or share such opinions, what would become of the immutable or unchangeable Dogmas of the Catholic Church? What would become of the unity and stability of the Faith?" (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 38,S., 2,13,1946. p, 385).

[AAABEST]

Drolesky is speaking at our Chapel (Our Lady Queen of Angels) next week Jesse.

Be there or be square.

[ultima ratio]

"Blind they are and leaders of the blind, puffed up with the proud name of science, they have reached that pitch of folly at which they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true meaning of religion; in introducing a new system in which they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the Holy and Apostolic Traditions, they embrace other and vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, unapproved by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can base and maintain truth itself' (St. Pius X, Pascendi quotation from the encyclical Singulari nos of Pope Gregory XVI, June 25, 1834).

[ndkos]

There has been a great deal of "discussion" lately concerning whether a State of Emergency exists within the Church that justified the episcopal consecrations done by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988 and the existence of chapels administered by priests who have separated themselves from diocesan structures that are in the hands of unbelievers and apostates.

Let me try to answer your question. From Our Lady's Warriors.

Because canon law, like all other legal systems, is open to interpretation, the Church offers various norms for interpreting canon law as well as for resolving disputes over interpretation that may arise between canonists. One such norm is canon 16 §1 that states: §1 "Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by that person to whom the legislator entrusts the power of authentic interpretation." This simply means that laws are to be interpreted according to the mind of the person who made (legislated) the law, as well as his successor and those who either he or his successor have delegated in an official capacity to interpret the law. In the case of the Code of Canon Law, the legislator is Pope John Paul II, and the persons entrusted to interpret the law as it applies to the Lefebvre schism are both Cardinal Gantin as the Prefect for the Congregation of Bishops, and the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. The weight of their canonical interpretation is outlined in the following paragraph, canon 16 A72 which states: "An authentic interpretation which is presented by way of a law has the same force as the law itself, and must be promulgated. If it simply declares the sense of words that are certain in themselves, it has retroactive force. In other words, when a question arises as to how to interpret a law, and the legislator offers an authentic interpretation, the legislator's interpretation is just as binding as the law itself."

[Land of the Irish]

On February 2, 1983, Pope John Paul II bestowed the cardinal's hat on De Lubac who was then almost eighty years of age. This papal action constituted a de facto rehabilitation, absolutely unjustified, as well as an unjustifiable repudiation of Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis.

Actions speak louder than words.

[Land of the Irish]

So are you saying Saint Joan of Arc is suffering eternal damnation in Hell?

[gbcdoj]

St. Joan wasn't excommunicated; she received holy Communion before her execution. In any case, her trial was manifestly unjust and illegal (her appeal to the Pope was ignored), and hence a sentence of excommunication would have been invalid. Moreover, unjust excommunications, while they separate a man from the communion of the Church, do not result in damnation, for "the person [unjustly] excommunicated should humbly submit (which will be credited to him as a merit) [. . .] if he submit humbly, the merit of his humility will compensate him for the harm of excommunication" (St. Thomas, Sup., q. 21 a. 4).

[gbcdoj]

Hans von Balthaszar, who believed in the heresy of universal salvation and the non-eternity of Hell, stating that Our Lord and Satan would be "reconciled" in the end

This is false. A more accurate critique of Balthasar's error may be found here:

It should be clear that this condemnation is not directly contrary to Fr. von Balthasar's thesis. He does not teach that the damned will be eventually restored. He proposes the hope that no humans are or will be actually damned. Furthermore, he teaches, along with this canon and all other pertinent teaching of the Magisterium, that the devil(s) are eternally damned. [. . .] In the light of what it has been given us to know, we must presume that (in numbers completely unknown to us) humans will be included in "the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt. 25:41), and that we ourselves could be among that number. It is such a presumption that the words of Jesus and the teaching of the Church would appear to have as their own, and better guides in this matter we cannot have. Against such a presumption one cannot have what is properly defined as theological hope, but one can and must have a human hope, a wish which expresses itself in prayer and zealous efforts, for the salvation of all. For we do and must pray: "Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell. Lead all souls to heaven, especially those who have most need of your mercy." (James T. O'Connor, "Von Balthasar and Salvation")

[Land of the Irish]

In any case, her trial was manifestly unjust and illegal (her appeal to the Pope was ignored), and hence a sentence of excommunication would have been invalid.

As was Archbishop Lefebvre's sentence.

Heck, New Rome didn't even give him a trial.

[ndkos]

Oh please! The Pope's intentions were perfectly clear that Lefebre was excommunicated.

[gbcdoj]

As was Archbishop Lefebvre's sentence.

Msgr. Lefebvre and his bishops did not appeal the sentence against them by the Congregation for Bishops. In any case, John Paul II confirmed the judgment in "Ecclesia Dei".

Bl. Pius IX's words about a former schism seem pertinent:

Since this does not please the neo-schismatics, they follow the example of heretics of more recent times. They argue that the sentence of schism and excommunication pronounced against them by the Archbishop of Tyana, the Apostolic Delegate in Constantinople, was unjust, and consequently void of strength and influence. They have claimed also that they are unable to accept the sentence because the faithful might desert to the heretics if deprived of their ministration. These novel arguments were wholly unknown and unheard of by the ancient Fathers of the Church. For "the whole Church throughout the world knows that the See of the blessed Apostle Peter has the right of loosing again what any pontiffs have bound, since this See possesses the right of judging the whole Church, and no one may judge its judgment." [. . .] But the neo-schismatics have gone further, since "every schism fabricates a heresy for itself to justify its withdrawal from the Church." Indeed they have even accused this Apostolic See as well, as if We had exceeded the limits of Our power in commanding that certain points of discipline were to be observed in the Patriarchate of Armenia. (Quartus Supra)

It's all right there: appeals to the state of necessity, claims of unjust excommunication (apparently without a trial), claims that the Pope has exceeded his powers, and so on. Bl. Pius IX gave short shrift to such arguments. Pius VI, of blessed memory, has the same teaching: "the right of ordaining bishops [. . .] cannot be assumed by any bishop or metropolitan without obliging Us to declare schismatic both those who ordain and those who are ordained" (Charitas). He later prohibits the appeal to the "pretext of necessity".

Heck, New Rome didn't even give him a trial.

47. Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called "ipso facto" have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect,-false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous. (Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, DZ 1547)

[gbcdoj]

On February 2, 1983, Pope John Paul II bestowed the cardinal's hat on De Lubac who was then almost eighty years of age. This papal action constituted a de facto rehabilitation, absolutely unjustified, as well as an unjustifiable repudiation of Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis.

A different point of view:

Humani Generis was intended to say "No" to the sorts of approaches represented by la nouvelle theologie, but it was modified, according to de Lubac, who had a letter from John XXIII on this, stating that Pius XII had himself altered elements in Humani Generis that were directly critical of the kind of work de Lubac was doing.

[Land of the Irish]

The Pope's intentions were perfectly clear...

[ultima ratio]

Is that why he joined the other "experts" of modernism at the Council--men like Courtney Murray and Schillebeeck? I don't buy it. The New Theology was lethal to the faith. Pius XII knew it and he said so, condemning the very men who became the leading lights at Vatican II. Is it any wonder disaster followed within ten years? Humani Generis still stands as a warning, though you'd never know it in the contemporary Church which glorifies what had been condemned.

[Land of the Irish]

St. Joan wasn't excommunicated

Wrong, again

After the reading of the sentence of excommunication came a long pause, for a condemned person was not denied time to address the people if wishing to do so. For half an hour or more Joan spoke, protesting her faith and trust in God, asking for the prayers of the people as well as for the intercession of the saints, and her words, "pitiful, devout and Catholic", were so moving that those who could hear her, even the Cardinal of England and many Englishmen, were seen to weep.

The soldiers grew impatient. Two sergeants came and forced her down from the platform where she stood and led her to the Bailiff who represented the English authorities. So far she had been excommunicated but not sentenced to death: yet no judgment was read in the name of the king, no sentence was pronounced, and the Bailiff, merely waving his hand, to signify these legal formalities were not worth troubling about, said: ""—that is: "Take her away. Take her away"—and she was straightway taken to the stake and handed to the executioner. She asked for a cross and a soldier hastily made one with two pieces of wood tied together—she kissed it and put it in her bosom. Then her arms were pinioned behind her back and she was chained to the stake. At her request, Isambart, who, as well as Ladvenu, was attending her, sent for the cross of a near-by church and held it before her right to the end of her long agony. "To the end of her life", affirms Martin Ladvenu, "she maintained and asserted that her Voices came from God and that what she had done had been done by God's command. She did not believe that her Voices had deceived her, and in giving up the ghost, bending her head she uttered the name of Jesus in a voice that could be heard all over the market-place by all present, as a sign that she was fervent in the faith of God." Her heart was unconsumed. By order of Cardinal Beaufort, the ashes and all that remained of St Joan were put into a sack and thrown into the Seine "that the world might have no relic of her of whom the world was not worthy".[5]

[gbcdoj]

Ah, I see. From your source:

By a contradiction which shows how little the Tribunal were convinced of the justice of their own sentence, they granted her—a declared schismatic and heretic—the privilege of Holy Communion, which all these long months had been denied her.

I will grant you that the Tribunal attempted to excommunicate her; it would seem, however, that it was invalid (and hence there was no excommunication) since it was manifestly contrary to the law. As the Catholic Encyclopedia says:

The first trial had been conducted without reference to the pope, indeed it was carried out in defiance of St. Joan's appeal to the head of the Church. Now an appellate court constituted by the pope, after long inquiry and examination of witnesses, reversed and annulled the sentence pronounced by a local tribunal under Cauchon's presidency. The illegality of the former proceedings was made clear ...

In any case, the example of St. Joan doesn't seem to prove your point. Are you arguing that since she was truly excommunicated unjustly, the excommunication had no force, and hence the same is true of Msgr. Lefebvre and his bishops? St. Thomas explains why whether or not she was excommunicated unjustly or not excommunicated due to illegality of the sentence, she would not have been damned. For he says, as I pointed out in my previous post:

In this case, if the error, on the part of the sentence, be such as to render the sentence void, this has no effect, for there is no excommunication; but if the error does not annul the sentence, this takes effect, and the person excommunicated should humbly submit (which will be credited to him as a merit), and either seek absolution from the person who has excommunicated him, or appeal to a higher judge. If, however, he were to contemn the sentence, he would "ipso facto" sin mortally. (Sup., q. 21 a. 4)

Obviously the case of St. Joan, who appealed the sentence and submitted, is far different from the case of Msgr. Lefebvre and his bishops, who did and do in fact contemn the sentence against them. Hence no comparison is possible, it would seem.