Excommunication

[aquinasg]

Pope Innocent III  “It is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he does not go against the Universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the Universal customs of the Church, he need not be followed.” – De Consuetudine

John Paul II did not go against a custom of the whole Church, so I don't see any excuse for those excommunicated bishops

[PeterII]

Is it a universal custom of the Church to excommunicate prelates trying to preserve orthodoxy? 

[DrBombay]

I thought the bishops had been un-excommunicated.  Does it really matter now?

[PeterII]

Future protocol. 

[spasiisochrani]

UNIGENITUS (Section 3)[2]
Condemnation Of The Errors Of Paschasius Quesnel[1]
Pope Clement XI

92. To suffer in peace an excommunication and an unjust anathema rather than betray truth, is to imitate St. Paul; far be it from rebelling against authority or of destroying unity.

I don't know how far the above condemnation extends. Does it prove that Lefebvre was completely wrong in what he did?

In Church documents, propositions are condemned as erroneous opinions in the sense and context in which they originally occurred.  In order to understand the meaning of the condemnation in this case, you would have to refer to the relevant work of Quesnel in order to discern the context.  The condemnation does not mean that the condemned proposition is always and everywhere untrue. 

[Scriptorium]

UNIGENITUS (Section 3)[2]
Condemnation Of The Errors Of Paschasius Quesnel[1]
Pope Clement XI

92. To suffer in peace an excommunication and an unjust anathema rather than betray truth, is to imitate St. Paul; far be it from rebelling against authority or of destroying unity.

I don't know how far the above condemnation extends. Does it prove that Lefebvre was completely wrong in what he did?

In Church documents, propositions are condemned as erroneous opinions in the sense and context in which they originally occurred.  In order to understand the meaning of the condemnation in this case, you would have to refer to the relevant work of Quesnel in order to discern the context.  The condemnation does not mean that the condemned proposition is always and everywhere untrue. 

THIS.

[aquinasg]

Paul VI in various speeches said that although Vatican II was not dogmatic but instead it was doctrinal and pastoral, it was binding and its authority "could not be called into doubt". Theologians have the right to dissent from non-infallible teachings, but the SSPX tell their faithful to dissent from it as well. This is not Catholic obedience. Besides, some of the teachings of Vatican II that the SSPX rejects has been re-taught by many documents after Vatican II so I don't see how they can't be considered definite by now. Sedevacantism seems far more logical than than the actions of the SSPX

[aquinasg]

What you said is true spasiisochrani, but how what other interpretation can we put on that condemnation?

[PeterII]

Paul VI in various speeches said that although Vatican II was not dogmatic but instead it was doctrinal and pastoral, it was binding and its authority "could not be called into doubt". Theologians have the right to dissent from non-infallible teachings, but the SSPX tell their faithful to dissent from it as well. This is not Catholic obedience. Besides, some of the teachings of Vatican II that the SSPX rejects has been re-taught by many documents after Vatican II so I don't see how they can't be considered definite by now. Sedevacantism seems far more logical than than the actions of the SSPX

Your statements are too general, as they don't consider degrees of assent and novelty.  Nor is your theory that theologians have a right to dissent while lay people do not.  Everyone is bound equally.  You also have to define the questions before pronouncing judgement on them.   Which specific heterodox teachings are being retaught?

[spasiisochrani]

What you said is true spasiisochrani, but how what other interpretation can we put on that condemnation?

Quesnel held to Jansenistic errors about grace, including the Calvinistic-like notions that a man can do only evil without grace , and that man cannot resist God's grace.  When his errors were pointed out, he obstinately persisted in them and disregarded the ecclesiastical censures levied against him.  When he said that "the fear of an unjust excommunication must never keep us from doing our duty" (prop. 91), and that "to suffer in peace an undeserved excommunication and anathema rather than betray the truth is to imitate St. Paul" (prop. 92), he was essentially denying the teaching authority of the Church and of the Pope because they did not agree with him.  He was setting himself up as the ultimate teaching authority.  The condemnation means that he was wrong in doing that.  It does not mean that there can never be an unjust excommunication.  Consider the case of St. Mary MacKillop, the recently-canonized Australian nun who was once unjustly excommunicated by her bishop.