Can one be traditional and not support the SSPX?

[SearchingCatholic]

Petrolltron,
You mentioned in your latest encyclical condemning the SSPX that the charge of heresy against the Church cannot cannot be proven with any certainty. Well, this is true. But the charge of material heresy can be proven against individuals, such as Pope John Paul ll. however, the charge of formal heresy cannot be made toward him. There's a difference.

I think that there have been Popes in the past that have been declared formal heretics, have there not?

So if the Pope is not proven formally heretic then he is a heretic anyway by virtue of the fact that he is materially heretic.
But if the SSPX is not proven formally schismatic then it is not schismatic even though it is materially schismatic.
Seems like a double standard going on here.

My understanding is that the Church has stated that the SSPX is guilty of disobedience to the Pope/Church and they are not a Canonically recognized group, but they are not in a state of schism. The excommunications against the four Bishops were rescinded by the Holy See. Catholics are allowed to attend SSPX Masses in order to fulfill the Sunday obligation.

To continue to claim that the SSPX is schismatic when the Church has ruled that is not schismatic is to commit calumny and to be disobedient to the rulings of the Church. My understanding is that to be schismatic means to want to separate oneself from the Church. This has never been the intention of the SSPX (remember, +Lefebvre and the four men he ordained as Bishops were excommunicated for violating Church rules/disobeying an order of the Pope, not for the sin of schism) and, according to those who have attended SSPX Masses, they pray for the Holy Father.

OK.  I hate to open what is obviously a very contentious can of worms, but I have friends who belong to SSPX and I was under the understanding from the canon lawyer of our diocese that one may not attend the SSPX Mass and fulfil the Sunday obligation or I would have done so by now.  Could you please point me to any church documents that will clarify things for me.?  I also thought, at least until the excommunications were lifted, that the SSPX was in schism b/c or the illicit consecrations and disobedience that they were excommunicated, which by definition means they are not in communion with the church.  This is obviously a very hot & contested topic, but I am new here and would really like some understanding of the situation.

Thanks!

[Scipio_a]

You keep saying the same false thing over and over...so you are a lier...or stupid...all your points have been handled by many...many times over...to the satisfaction of reason.

No Pope or any other clergy can tell you to endanger your Faith, and be considered a legitimate authority as they tell you to do these things...A priest of any rank, cannot tell you to go to an NO service you think is going to endanger you faith...


We know it can and does endanger the Faith...the NO, that is.   So avoidance of it...if you can...is a duty....(if you can't....you just have to make a really tough choice...there are folks here that choose both ways...go or avoid...my hats off to them)

Listen...We all know you read Peter Vere and lick from his plate...we all know you have not read the books I suggest...we all know you are a troll trying to sow confusion by lying about the priests and Society of the SSPX (and others)...we have all seen the arguments before...and no one is buying them...that's why we're here...and those who have not had the delight of reading Fr. Neuhaus...and Card...Dulles as they trashed trads and the SSPX...have seen the same themes by less capable commentators and priests bent on getting a buck for the lies they tell....

"Don't go to the SSPX, they're schismatic....or they're sacraments aren't valid, or....whatever"
What it really boils down to is..."Please don't look into the SSPX...I can't afford to lose anymore collection plate money,,,,and I know they have a real case and might even be right....I just can't lose any more parishoners."

[INPEFESS]

Which means that you defer to the authority of the church except when you judge that it is not representing or manifesting the truth throughout all the ages. In which case you do not defer to it. You therefore set yourself, fisheaters, sspx and whoever up as a judge of whether the church is preserving tradition or not. Err. Hang on bud. That is the churches job to guard and preserve tradition, not yours, not the SSPX, not fisheaters and certainly not Dimond brothers.

Yes, but the Church has failed to do so.  Someone had to safeguard the traditional Mass after V2 in much the same way St. Athanasius had to stick his neck out in his day.

Tradition can be safeguarded without rebelling. There is no need to consecrate bishops against the command of the Pope.

If the souls of millions are at stake, there most certainly is a need. St. Paul's second epistle to the Thessalonians commands Catholics:

1 And we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our gathering together unto him: 2 That you be not easily moved from your sense, nor be terrified, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by epistle, as sent from us, as if the day of the Lord were at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, 4 Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. 5 Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

3 "A revolt"... This revolt, or falling off, is generally understood, by the ancient fathers, of a revolt from the Roman empire, which was first to be destroyed, before the coming of Antichrist. It may, perhaps, be understood also of a revolt of many nations from the Catholic Church; which has, in part, happened already, by means of Mahomet, Luther, &c., and it may be supposed, will be more general in the days of the Antichrist.

3 "The man of sin"... Here must be meant some particular man, as is evident from the frequent repetition of the Greek article: 'the man of sin, 'the son of perdition, 'the adversary or opposer. It agrees to the wicked and great Antichrist, who will come before the end of the world.

4 "In the temple"... Either that of Jerusalem which some think he will rebuild; or in some Christian church, which he will pervert to his own worship: as Mahomet has done by the churches of the east.

6 And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, 9 Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, 10 And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:

10 "God shall send"... That is God shall suffer them to be deceived by lying wonders, and false miracles, in punishment of their not entertaining the love of truth.

11 That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity. 12 But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of God, for that God hath chosen you firstfruits unto salvation, in sanctification of the spirit, and faith of the truth: 13 Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. 15 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in grace,

14 "Traditions"... See here that the unwritten traditions are no less to be received than their epistles.

16 Exhort your hearts, and confirm you in every good work and word.

There is no need to set up confessions and other sacraments outside the visible and ordinary structure of the church. There is no need to slander popes and teachers of the church with labels of "modernist" "heretic". There is no need to disparage or reject the catechism or the rites of the church.

Objectively, if one truly believes per his God-given conscience that the Faith and its traditions are being destroyed by dangerous teachings, lex dubia non obligat. But even viewed from your perspective, what you have written is hindsight bias.

It is quite alright to ask the question "The church used to say this, and now it says this. How can that not be modernist?" And then learn and be teachable to hear the answer. And if you still disagree you may write to the bishop. You might even have a petition to the Pope for him to address an issue, or a pilgrimidge to the cathedral. But if after all of that the Pope tells you to "zip it" and "stand down soldier" then unity, obedience and good common sense tells us that as men who are under authority we should and must obey that authority. You obey at work when your boss tells you to "shut up and go back into your box". You go quiet and obey because otherwise you will get the sack. And yet the same people who would obey their boss at work if push came to shove show no concern for their eternal souls and continue to clamour long after the Pope has said "enough!".

Those are not even comparable. The job is about earning money to live. This crisis is about avoiding hellfire. One must obey his boss in all things that are not sin. One is not allowed to obey or believe heretical teachings.

I found a web site from a monastery which obviously was opposing modernism, which was keeping catholic tradition, the TLM, exposing the faults of modernism which are in the church, but it levelled no blame at the dignitaries of the church. It did not accuse specific individuals. In fact the website exemplefied the catholic tradition of praying for the Pope, bishops and priests. Let us do the same. Do we really think our clamour, wingeing, disobedience, rebellion, calumny and accusation is more effective than personal avoidance of modernism, sober traditional catholic life, quiet obedience and prayer? If we do then we think like men of the world and are not being led by the Spirit. If we do then we exhibit a Protestant (protesting) mentality and not a docile obedient catholic mentality.

Many saints have opposed such things with equal fervor as the SSPX. Read the lives of St. Cyril, St. Athanasius, St. Hypathius, etc. No one has an obligation to submit to heresy, even if it be spoken by someone who bears the title of "Pope". St. Hypathius, for example, refused to include the name of Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, in the Canon of the Mass the moment the Patriarch embraced heresy.

[petrelton]

The sedevacantist mentality to which I refer is this idea that we as layfolk can subject the magisterium of the church to our scrutiny and judgement to ensure that tradition is upheld, and that when we judge with our own brains (which are after all the size of a planet) that the church is departing from tradition that we shall therefore be justified to more or less depart from the church. Sedevacantists depart completely from the church. But all those who reject the authority of the Pope to one extent or another are saying that the Pope is only half or one quarter or one tenth in the chair. So we still have a pope but not a supreme Pope but rather a figurehead paper tiger pope. This is the sedevacantist mentality. The kind of mentality which is primed at the drop of a hat to cry out "we have no bishop".

Whether or not sedevacantists are correct in their belief is irrelevant because it cannot be discussed on this forum. I apologize if I sound condescending, but regardless of the statements from those sedevacantists with whom you might have spoken, you understand very little to nothing of what sedevacantists actually believe...

It seems to me that you are trying to draw me into a sedevacantist discussion which I cannot do. Seeing I cannot defend my understanding of what sedevacantists do or believe it is inappropriate and unfair of you to make this accusation against me. Nevertheless I think I have probably erred against the forum rules by suggesting that the SSPX have a sedevacantist mentality so therefore I will retract those comments and will not comment further along those lines.

[Meg]

Petrolltron,

To what 'Schismatic acts' are you referring to, in which you highlighted? Do believe that it was an schismatic act for Archbishop Lefebvre to consecrate the four bishops? It was not.

Cardinal Lara, the president for the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law stated, in 1988, that ...""The act of consecrating a bishop (without Pope's permission) is not in itself a schismatic act." (Repubblica, Oct. 7, 1988)

The SSPX website posts this in regards to the supposed 'schismatic act:
'What, moreover, constitutes a schismatic act? Not the mere consecrating of a bishop without pontifical mandate. the 1983 Code of Canon Law itself lists this offense under title 3 (abuse of eccliastical powers) and not under title 1 (offenses against religion and the unity of the Church) of its penal section (book 6).

Nor would it be a 'schismatic act' to consecrate against the express wish of the Holy Father. That could amount to disobedience at most. But disobedience does not amount to schism; schism requires that one not recognize the authority of the pope to command; disobedience consists in not obeying a command, whilst still acknowledging the authority of the one commanding. The child who says, 'I won't!' to his mother does not deny that she is his mother. (Fr. Glovis in 'Is Tradition excommunicated?')

http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q12_sspxschismatic.htm

[SearchingCatholic]

Petrolltron,

To what 'Schismatic acts' are you referring to, in which you highlighted? Do believe that it was an schismatic act for Archbishop Lefebvre to consecrate the four bishops? It was not.

Cardinal Lara, the president for the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law stated, in 1988, that ...""The act of consecrating a bishop (without Pope's permission) is not in itself a schismatic act." (Repubblica, Oct. 7, 1988)

The SSPX website posts this in regards to the supposed 'schismatic act:
'What, moreover, constitutes a schismatic act? Not the mere consecrating of a bishop without pontifical mandate. the 1983 Code of Canon Law itself lists this offense under title 3 (abuse of ecclesiastical powers) and not under title 1 (offenses against religion and the unity of the Church) of its penal section (book 6).

Nor would it be a 'schismatic act' to consecrate against the express wish of the Holy Father. That could amount to disobedience at most. But disobedience does not amount to schism; schism requires that one not recognize the authority of the pope to command; disobedience consists in not obeying a command, whilst still acknowledging the authority of the one commanding. The child who says, 'I won't!' to his mother does not deny that she is his mother. (Fr. Glovis in 'Is Tradition excommunicated?')

http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q12_sspxschismatic.htm

Thanks for the link to the SSPX website that list s the quotes from Cardinals Lara and Ratzinger.  That at least gives me a place to start.  +!

[Scipio_a]

OK.  I hate to open what is obviously a very contentious can of worms, but I have friends who belong to SSPX and I was under the understanding from the canon lawyer of our diocese that one may not attend the SSPX Mass and fulfil the Sunday obligation or I would have done so by now.  Could you please point me to any church documents that will clarify things for me.?  I also thought, at least until the excommunications were lifted, that the SSPX was in schism b/c or the illicit consecrations and disobedience that they were excommunicated, which by definition means they are not in communion with the church.  This is obviously a very hot & contested topic, but I am new here and would really like some understanding of the situation.

Thanks!

If you really are looking for something...these two guys are not the go to folks...Just say'n...Nsper is actually open to things...so he has something to offer...


The current Pope has said...even before the "lifting" of the excomms that they "are not properly in schism."

If anyone can find the link to this or the source I would appreciate it...as I told Satori I would find it months ago...just have not done so, and my memory on some of this gets hazy since I did all of the searching YEARS ago

Also...the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith...in no uncertain terms said it is OK to go to Mass at the SSPX, as long as you don't absorb a spirit of Schism...this was in response to the folks in Hawaii who were "excommunicated" by the local bishop there...the congregation reversed him


http://www.sspx.org/diocesan_dialogues/honolulu_&_hawaii6.htm


Now all these thing always seem to have a grain of salt to them...and of course the SSPX is going to try to present itself in the best light possible...(although I think the usually fail at this since a good deal of their stuff starts out in French...and the translators are not so hot...and a lot of what they print on such subjects is intentionally written for the lowest common denominator....which sometimes makes them sound as if they are trying too hard.


I'll try to put more together for you...but really it is a lot of work...I did a lot of work to get to the SSPX...so trying to distill it to an answer on an internet thread is a bit daunting...your friends are probably a good source...why not just ask...they'll be happy to oblige.

Finally...and I ALWAYS tell this to folks trying to decide on which trad group to attend...I will not push that you go to the one I choose...it goes without saying, that I think I am right.  What is important is that you go to the trad group you are comfortable with....the only thing I ask is that you follow the logic all the way out...if you do this...you will end up at one of a couple trad groups.


If you want to discuss the things I think you need to take into account...PM me since I will not post all of it to the forum in one post.

[SearchingCatholic]

Thanks Scipio!  I will be sure to check out the references you gave me.  I will PM you later for some help.

BTW - my friends have moved across the country and phone calls get expensive.  They also don't have internet.  So it makes a long discussion a bit difficult.

Thanks again.  +1 for being helpful

[petrelton]

Petrolltron,

To what 'Schismatic acts' are you referring to, in which you highlighted? Do believe that it was an schismatic act for Archbishop Lefebvre to consecrate the four bishops? It was not.

Cardinal Lara, the president for the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law stated, in 1988, that ...""The act of consecrating a bishop (without Pope's permission) is not in itself a schismatic act." (Repubblica, Oct. 7, 1988)
The SSPX website posts this in regards to the supposed 'schismatic act:
'What, moreover, constitutes a schismatic act? Not the mere consecrating of a bishop without pontifical mandate. the 1983 Code of Canon Law itself lists this offense under title 3 (abuse of eccliastical powers) and not under title 1 (offenses against religion and the unity of the Church) of its penal section (book 6).

I have already covered this vatican rubber language. A bishop may be consecrated in the underground church in china when it is impossible to obtain permission from the Vatican because of communication problems. For example. It is the consecrating of a bishop against the express orders of the Pope which is definately a schismatic act.

Nor would it be a 'schismatic act' to consecrate against the express wish of the Holy Father. That could amount to disobedience at most. But disobedience does not amount to schism; schism requires that one not recognize the authority of the pope to command; disobedience consists in not obeying a command, whilst still acknowledging the authority of the one commanding. The child who says, 'I won't!' to his mother does not deny that she is his mother. (Fr. Glovis in 'Is Tradition excommunicated?')

http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q12_sspxschismatic.htm

Like we all have to agree with the teachings of every priest. This is abject nonsense. Disobedience is a schismatic act. What ABL did was exactly like a child disobeying his mother. Its wrong for a child and they deserve a spanking. Its wrong for ABL. Disobedience and rebellion are grave sins. You are just splitting straws whether you want to call it a "schismatic act" or "disobedience". What difference does it make? Both are severe breaches which in any other day or time would have been considered a break in apostolic succession.

In days gone by the church would have dished out excommunications and anathemas and made it clear to the faithful that they are seperated from the church. But what good did that do during the reformation? The church is trying a different wiffle waffle approach these days to kind of coax the naughty monkey back into his house before he runs off into the jungle. Maybe this modern approach will work but I doubt it. I mean how do you deal with rebels? They are impossible to deal with.

[Meg]

Petrollton,
What difference does it make? Well, why have a Code of Canon Law, then? Perhaps you believe that a Pope does not have to think about the Canon, about the rules regarding his teaching authority. Instead, he can do whatever he wants, regardless. A Protestant mentality, if I ever saw one.

Can you name any other time in Church history when an Archbishop was excommunicated for consecrating bishops without the express permission of the Pope?

[RalphKramden]

You keep saying the same false thing over and over...so you are a lier...or stupid...all your points have been handled by many...many times over...to the satisfaction of reason.

No Pope or any other clergy can tell you to endanger your Faith, and be considered a legitimate authority as they tell you to do these things...A priest of any rank, cannot tell you to go to an NO service you think is going to endanger you faith...


We know it can and does endanger the Faith...the NO, that is.   So avoidance of it...if you can...is a duty....(if you can't....you just have to make a really tough choice...there are folks here that choose both ways...go or avoid...my hats off to them)

Listen...We all know you read Peter Vere and lick from his plate...we all know you have not read the books I suggest...we all know you are a troll trying to sow confusion by lying about the priests and Society of the SSPX (and others)...we have all seen the arguments before...and no one is buying them...that's why we're here...and those who have not had the delight of reading Fr. Neuhaus...and Card...Dulles as they trashed trads and the SSPX...have seen the same themes by less capable commentators and priests bent on getting a buck for the lies they tell....

"Don't go to the SSPX, they're schismatic....or they're sacraments aren't valid, or....whatever"
What it really boils down to is..."Please don't look into the SSPX...I can't afford to lose anymore collection plate money,,,,and I know they have a real case and might even be right....I just can't lose any more parishoners."

well said

[Meg]

You keep saying the same false thing over and over...so you are a lier...or stupid...all your points have been handled by many...many times over...to the satisfaction of reason.

No Pope or any other clergy can tell you to endanger your Faith, and be considered a legitimate authority as they tell you to do these things...A priest of any rank, cannot tell you to go to an NO service you think is going to endanger you faith...


We know it can and does endanger the Faith...the NO, that is.   So avoidance of it...if you can...is a duty....(if you can't....you just have to make a really tough choice...there are folks here that choose both ways...go or avoid...my hats off to them)

Listen...We all know you read Peter Vere and lick from his plate...we all know you have not read the books I suggest...we all know you are a troll trying to sow confusion by lying about the priests and Society of the SSPX (and others)...we have all seen the arguments before...and no one is buying them...that's why we're here...and those who have not had the delight of reading Fr. Neuhaus...and Card...Dulles as they trashed trads and the SSPX...have seen the same themes by less capable commentators and priests bent on getting a buck for the lies they tell....

"Don't go to the SSPX, they're schismatic....or they're sacraments aren't valid, or....whatever"
What it really boils down to is..."Please don't look into the SSPX...I can't afford to lose anymore collection plate money,,,,and I know they have a real case and might even be right....I just can't lose any more parishoners."

well said

I agree!

[petrelton]

OK.  I hate to open what is obviously a very contentious can of worms, but I have friends who belong to SSPX and I was under the understanding from the canon lawyer of our diocese that one may not attend the SSPX Mass and fulfil the Sunday obligation or I would have done so by now.  Could you please point me to any church documents that will clarify things for me.?  I also thought, at least until the excommunications were lifted, that the SSPX was in schism b/c or the illicit consecrations and disobedience that they were excommunicated, which by definition means they are not in communion with the church.  This is obviously a very hot & contested topic, but I am new here and would really like some understanding of the situation.

Thanks!

If you really are looking for something...these two guys are not the go to folks...Just say'n...Nsper is actually open to things...so he has something to offer...


The current Pope has said...even before the "lifting" of the excomms that they "are not properly in schism."

This amounts to modern rubber language. What he means that there has been no formal pronouncement of schism. The lifting of the excommunications is simply a device to coax the SSPX back into the fold. Even the statement "not properly in schism" is an admission that he believes that they are in schism in some sense. Otherwise he would have directly stated "they are not in schism"

If anyone can find the link to this or the source I would appreciate it...as I told Satori I would find it months ago...just have not done so, and my memory on some of this gets hazy since I did all of the searching YEARS ago

Also...the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith...in no uncertain terms said it is OK to go to Mass at the SSPX, as long as you don't absorb a spirit of Schism...this was in response to the folks in Hawaii who were "excommunicated" by the local bishop there...the congregation reversed him

The Pontifical Commission of Ecclesia Dei allows the faithful to fulfill their sunday obligation at an SSPX chapel provided that this attendance does not constitute a rejection of the NO mass, the ordinary jurisdiction of the church, a denial of the validity of the sacraments of the church. The PCED also pointed out the invalidity of confessions and marriages at the SSPX and urged the faithful to avoid regular attendance of SSPX chapels to avoid absorbing the schismatic mentality prevelant there. I am not aware of the specific details of the Hawaiin case however it seems clear that their attendance at SSPX masses had not crossed these bounds and that a schismatic mentality had not been absorbed by those individuals

http://www.sspx.org/diocesan_dialogues/honolulu_&_hawaii6.htm

Now all these thing always seem to have a grain of salt to them...and of course the SSPX is going to try to present itself in the best light possible...(although I think the usually fail at this since a good deal of their stuff starts out in French...and the translators are not so hot...and a lot of what they print on such subjects is intentionally written for the lowest common denominator....which sometimes makes them sound as if they are trying too hard.

yes I agree on all of these points.

I'll try to put more together for you...but really it is a lot of work...I did a lot of work to get to the SSPX...so trying to distill it to an answer on an internet thread is a bit daunting...your friends are probably a good source...why not just ask...they'll be happy to oblige.

Yes it is a lot of work. I've done the work and with numerous lengthy posts and citations I have clearly explained that although it might not be a directly schismatic act to attend an SSPX chapel on occasion; that repeated attendance and membership in their fraternity is very dangerous and can result in the individual forming a schismatic mentality and attitude against the church. I strongly advise the avoidance of the SSPX and to find a Latin Mass which is in good standing and accepted by the church.

Finally...and I ALWAYS tell this to folks trying to decide on which trad group to attend...I will not push that you go to the one I choose...it goes without saying, that I think I am right.  What is important is that you go to the trad group you are comfortable with....the only thing I ask is that you follow the logic all the way out...if you do this...you will end up at one of a couple trad groups.

I am not so indifferent as you are. I without any shyness urge everybody to leave the SSPX and I urge all those who are investigating this un-canonical group to avoid it to the best of their ability.

[petrelton]

You keep saying the same false thing over and over...so you are a lier...or stupid...all your points have been handled by many...many times over...to the satisfaction of reason.

No Pope or any other clergy can tell you to endanger your Faith, and be considered a legitimate authority as they tell you to do these things...A priest of any rank, cannot tell you to go to an NO service you think is going to endanger you faith...


We know it can and does endanger the Faith...the NO, that is.   So avoidance of it...if you can...is a duty....(if you can't....you just have to make a really tough choice...there are folks here that choose both ways...go or avoid...my hats off to them)

Listen...We all know you read Peter Vere and lick from his plate...we all know you have not read the books I suggest...we all know you are a troll trying to sow confusion by lying about the priests and Society of the SSPX (and others)...we have all seen the arguments before...and no one is buying them...that's why we're here...and those who have not had the delight of reading Fr. Neuhaus...and Card...Dulles as they trashed trads and the SSPX...have seen the same themes by less capable commentators and priests bent on getting a buck for the lies they tell....

Who's Peter Vere?

[petrelton]

Petrollton,
What difference does it make? Well, why have a Code of Canon Law, then? Perhaps you believe that a Pope does not have to think about the Canon, about the rules regarding his teaching authority. Instead, he can do whatever he wants, regardless. A Protestant mentality, if I ever saw one.

No I don't believe that. Where did I say that the Pope was justified in disobeying Canon law? Where did I concede that he broke canon law? Also could you please spell my nick name properly. Your inclusion of the word "troll" in my nic is clever in kind of silly school girl way. Grow up please.

Can you name any other time in Church history when an Archbishop was excommunicated for consecrating bishops without the express permission of the Pope?

The protestants consecrated bishops. Is that an acceptable example?