Repair My Church
Updatement & Notes for Clarification
©Prakash John Mascarenhas
EXCOMMUNICATION:Heretical or doctrinal schism or even plain or disciplinary schism has to be contumacious in order to separate the person so professing from the unity of the Church. And of course, aside from this principle, there are various legislations which prescribe an automatic excommunication for those who profess certain errors specifically excluded or forbidden by the Magisterium in the past. Therefore, each putative act of schism or of excommunication allegedly incurred, whether by a person or by a group professing together an error or collection of errors, must be judged on individual basis. And again, the Resistance has conclusively proven its case that the proponents of the schismatic and even apostate Antichurch of Roncalli et al has incurred automatic excommunication by professing proscribed errors for which automatic excommunication was prescribed.
PAPAL INFALLIBILITY & INDEFECTIBILITY: I am grateful to the late Mr. William J. Morgan for having brought to my attention the typo wherein I have mistakenly accused the SSPX of teaching the heresy of Papal Infallibility, when I actually was accusing them of the heresy of Papal Indefectibility. I accept the decrees of the Council of the Vatican, including that which sets out the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.
ACEPHALOUS COUNCIL & CONSTANCE: Strictly speaking, Constance was NOT acephalous. It was summoned by John XXIII or Baldassare Cossa, of the Pisan line, to whom most of Christendom acceded. And since it was dominated by adherents of the Conciliarist heresy, mainly French laymen and University scholars, it did not wish to examine the relative claims but forced through their resignation or deposition. Only Pedro de Luna, the Avignonese claimant Benedict XIII refused to submit to Constance. However, the Catholics cooperated with Constance becasue they desired to unify the papal claims, which was successful done in Martin V, elected following the free resignation of the Roman line Gregory VII; John XXIII having fled and being captured, was deposed.
ELECTION BY A COUNCIL: I latter understood that the election of a pope can be done even by a lay assembly or 'conclave', and that there is not a strict necessity for summoning a Council. Further, I understood that a Council cannot be summoned because there has been an en masse defection of bishops; that those of the Resistance who sought and obtained consecration as bishops are irregular and thus without authority and so, therefore, there are no proper or regular bishops who alone can convene in an acephalous Council.
SACERDOTAL EMANCIPATION: Again, I accept that my idea about priests being emancipated by the collapse of the temporary lapse of the normal Constitutional Order of the Church is wrong. Priests are not bishops and without consecration, they cannot obtain the episcopal orders. (I am grateful to Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt for having brought to my attention the fact that my idea contradicted Church Teaching.)
SPELLING ERRORS: Cassicanism, Cassicanist, Lefebrism, Lefebrist. The correct spellings are Cassiciacum, Cassiciacanism, Cassiciacanist, Lefebvrism, Lefebvrist. [Cassiciacum, I believe, is the name of the estate in whose garden St. Augustine had his conversion experience.] Cassiciacanism is also called Sedeprivationism or the 'Materialiter-Formaliter' formula. I have also called it, at some places, Guerardism, for its formulator, Guerard des Lauriers. [Guerard had published this idea in his bulletin, the Cahiers de Cassiciacum.] I believe that this ideology is also called Sede-impedita?
©Prakash John Mascarenhas.