>>564036
Still wrong, fag.
==Canon 751== defines schism as "the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him,"
disobedience =/= an act schism. Archbishop Lefebvre always recognized the pope’s authority.
Excommunication comes in two flavors the one we are dealing with here is a latae sententiae excommunication.
Latae sententiae is an excommunication that has been inflicted by the perpetrator on himself, as it were, by his very act.
==Canon 1323== - No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept:
>4° acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls.
Archbishop Lefebvre made it abundantly clear that he was acting out of grave necessity in order to ensure the faithful would have truly Catholic bishops. Archbishop Lefebvre was of old age and the Vatican was stalling his request, waiting for him to die of old age (how very Catholic of them) so they could ensure the Latin mass would die with him. He needed the bishops to keep the Latin mass alive.
==Canon 1323== - No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept:
>7° thought, through no personal fault, that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in nn. 4 or 5.
Canon 1324
>§1 The perpetrator of a violation is not exempted from penalty, but the penalty prescribed in the law or precept must be diminished, or a penance substituted in its place, if the offence was committed by:
>8° one who erroneously, but culpably, thought that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in Can. 1323, nn. 4 or 5;
<§3 In the circumstances mentioned in §1, the offender is not bound by a latae sententiae penalty.
The excommunication is invalid.
"In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act [Can. 751]." —Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei, No. 3, 07/02/1988
<"disobedience to the Roman Pontiff"
<"implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy"
Pope JPII is wrong and doesn't even understand his own Canon Law. Disobedience =/= schism. This is not proof Archbishop Lefebrve rejects the Roman primacy.
==Canon 1752== - the salvation of souls is the supreme law in the Church.
TL:DR Archbishop Lefebrve dindu nuffin