Was Archbishop Lefebvre Really Excommunicated?
#11
(10-09-2014, 05:13 PM)Prie dieu Wrote: [The] sentimentality that the SSPX accuses to be at the base of most of the doctrines surrounding Vatican II?

The SSPX says no such thing.
Reply
#12
(10-10-2014, 06:45 AM)Miles Immaculatae Wrote: No they weren't.

The question is "Was ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE really excommunicated?"

If you recognize John Paul II as having been a true pope, your answer has to be "Yes".
Reply
#13
Thank you, Father Cekada.
This is where sometimes, it really takes someone like Fr. C to say the simple thing. It all sounds so complicated until you ask the question: if a Pope does /says what he thinks excommunicates you, did he excommunicate you or not? Answer = yes.  So the real question is was JPII a valid pope? I say yes. But this is the real question, not the one about details argued over to create some wiggle room.
Reply
#14
This documentary is well worth watching for anyone looking to learn more about Archbishop Lefebvre.


Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
Reply
#15
(10-10-2014, 10:58 AM)FatherCekada Wrote:
(10-10-2014, 06:45 AM)Miles Immaculatae Wrote: No they weren't.

The question is "Was ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE really excommunicated?"

If you recognize John Paul II as having been a true pope, your answer has to be "Yes".

Has to be? Not nearly father, I am neither a Sedevacantist or a neo-Catholic! (two sides of the same coin) When you were in the society, they surely did tell you, didn't they, that the thing was allegedly Latae Sententiae ? It's not as if Pope John Paul II telephoned the archbishop the next morning, "You're all excommunicated!".

It has less to do with Pope John Paul II, and more to do with the 1982 code of canon law, which incidentally is the same code of canon law the society uses to defend its position, i.e. state of emergency. As you already know.

And as the article very simply makes out, John Paul II took the excommunication for granted, he didn't promulgate it. And even according to the Church's own manner of doing things, it wasn't done, the archbishop had not access to the proper juridical processes, as the article makes clear, and as you full well know already.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)