A question or two. A latae sententiae excommunication is not decreed by person even if a heretic but occurs by the act itself, correct? Second, I suppose one may argue that since the 1983 Code of Canon Law was formed by heretics that this is indirectly an excommunication by heretics? Third, however, didn't the 1917 Code also have a latae sententiae excommunication for the same act and therefore if still in effect (since the 1983 code applied only to the Conciliar church) wouldn't that excommunication be in effect and not based at all on heretics? Fourth, in the absence of a pope wouldn't other justifications in Canon Law allow episcopal consecrations anyway? Finally, do you understand why Abp. Lefebvre despite saying the hierarchy had succumbed to modernist heresy would not extend his argument to formal sedevanctism?
In recognising Leo as their Holy Roman Pontiff the SSPX is involving itself in all kinds of absurdity.. They are rightfully declared to be in schism from their pope and his church but implicit in that schism is the heresy of the rejection of the doctrine of the Church’s indefectablity. The reason for their schismatic act is the heretical teachings of the conciliar synodal church and yet they refuse (even against the pleading of St Paul) to anathematise them and have no part of them.
The very least they and the RnR in general could be accussd of is material herrsy but the more knowledgeable among the bishops and priests of the society would be hard to escape the charge of formal heresy. But
In recognising Leo as their Holy Roman Pontiff the SSPX is involving itself in all kinds of absurdity.. They are rightfully declared to be in schism from their pope and his church but implicit in that schism is the heresy of the rejection of the doctrine of the Church’s indefectablity. The reason for their schismatic act is the heretical teachings of the conciliar synodal church and yet they refuse (even against the pleading of St Paul) to anathematise them and have no part of them.
The very least they and the RnR in general could be accussd of is material herrsy but the more knowledgeable among the bishops and priests of the society would be hard to escape the charge of formal heresy. But
In recognising Leo as their Holy Roman Pontiff the SSPX is involving itself in all kinds of absurdity.. They are rightfully declared to be in schism from their pope and his church but implicit in that schism is the heresy of the rejection of the doctrine of the Church’s indefectablity. The reason for their schismatic act is the heretical teachings of the conciliar synodal church and yet they refuse (even against the pleading of St Paul) to anathematise them and have no part of them.
The very least they and the RnR in general could be accussd of is material herrsy but the more knowledgeable among the bishops and priests of the society would be hard to escape the charge of formal heresy. But
In recognising Leo as their Holy Roman Pontiff the SSPX is involving itself in all kinds of absurdity.. They are rightfully declared to be in schism from their pope and his church but implicit in that schism is the heresy of the rejection of the doctrine of the Church’s indefectablity. The reason for their schismatic act is the heretical teachings of the conciliar synodal church and yet they refuse (even against the pleading of St Paul) to anathematise them and have no part of them.
The very least they and the RnR in general could be accussd of is material herrsy but the more knowledgeable among the bishops and priests of the society would be hard to escape the charge of formal heresy. But
A question or two. A latae sententiae excommunication is not decreed by person even if a heretic but occurs by the act itself, correct? Second, I suppose one may argue that since the 1983 Code of Canon Law was formed by heretics that this is indirectly an excommunication by heretics? Third, however, didn't the 1917 Code also have a latae sententiae excommunication for the same act and therefore if still in effect (since the 1983 code applied only to the Conciliar church) wouldn't that excommunication be in effect and not based at all on heretics? Fourth, in the absence of a pope wouldn't other justifications in Canon Law allow episcopal consecrations anyway? Finally, do you understand why Abp. Lefebvre despite saying the hierarchy had succumbed to modernist heresy would not extend his argument to formal sedevanctism?
1. Yes, correct. That had implications for the principle defended, as explained in the pieces.
2/3. Maybe indirectly. The 1917 Code imposes suspension but Pius XII upped the ante there. Arguably it is still in force, though some would disagree.
4. That is debated.
5. No, I don't understand exactly. I can speculate on various possibilities, but it is in the past now of course.
In recognising Leo as their Holy Roman Pontiff the SSPX is involving itself in all kinds of absurdity.. They are rightfully declared to be in schism from their pope and his church but implicit in that schism is the heresy of the rejection of the doctrine of the Church’s indefectablity. The reason for their schismatic act is the heretical teachings of the conciliar synodal church and yet they refuse (even against the pleading of St Paul) to anathematise them and have no part of them.
The very least they and the RnR in general could be accussd of is material herrsy but the more knowledgeable among the bishops and priests of the society would be hard to escape the charge of formal heresy. But
In recognising Leo as their Holy Roman Pontiff the SSPX is involving itself in all kinds of absurdity.. They are rightfully declared to be in schism from their pope and his church but implicit in that schism is the heresy of the rejection of the doctrine of the Church’s indefectablity. The reason for their schismatic act is the heretical teachings of the conciliar synodal church and yet they refuse (even against the pleading of St Paul) to anathematise them and have no part of them.
The very least they and the RnR in general could be accussd of is material herrsy but the more knowledgeable among the bishops and priests of the society would be hard to escape the charge of formal heresy. But
In recognising Leo as their Holy Roman Pontiff the SSPX is involving itself in all kinds of absurdity.. They are rightfully declared to be in schism from their pope and his church but implicit in that schism is the heresy of the rejection of the doctrine of the Church’s indefectablity. The reason for their schismatic act is the heretical teachings of the conciliar synodal church and yet they refuse (even against the pleading of St Paul) to anathematise them and have no part of them.
The very least they and the RnR in general could be accussd of is material herrsy but the more knowledgeable among the bishops and priests of the society would be hard to escape the charge of formal heresy. But
In recognising Leo as their Holy Roman Pontiff the SSPX is involving itself in all kinds of absurdity.. They are rightfully declared to be in schism from their pope and his church but implicit in that schism is the heresy of the rejection of the doctrine of the Church’s indefectablity. The reason for their schismatic act is the heretical teachings of the conciliar synodal church and yet they refuse (even against the pleading of St Paul) to anathematise them and have no part of them.
The very least they and the RnR in general could be accussd of is material herrsy but the more knowledgeable among the bishops and priests of the society would be hard to escape the charge of formal heresy. But