Archbishop Lefebvre

[Arnobius]

Rest assured that neither he nor I are “rejecting the Church” by holding a lawful theological opinion. Are you saying that one goes to hell for a mistake?

SFD

Ironic. Most of the people defending the SSPX and others argue that we cannot assume invincible ignorance. That sword cuts both ways. If we can’t assume it for the pagan or the Protestant, can we assume it for an archbishop who did a willfully defiant act that led to an automatic excommunication had the invincible ignorance required to save him?

Chutzpah I would think. Matthew 7 says:

• 1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.*

 

[catharina]

Other than pray with non Catholics and non Christians at Assisi, what else did John Paul II do at Assisi or allow that made this such an issue?

I can’t imagine John Paul II at a Roman Orgy in Assisi. First of all, it’s the wrong city.

I have pulled my hairs trying to think of what in the world was so horrible that took place in Assisi, which directly involved John Paul II. I am empty-handed. Maybe I forgot. It’s been more than 20 years and I’m old.

I just want to get this Assisi issue out of the way, because it seems to muddle the waters in this discussion.

Thanks for your help.

JR - Please don’t take any of this too seriously. Spare your hair. It’s a sad fact, discovered by many - who cross paths with the Exclusionary Right here - that the farthest Right had no use for John Paul II. It is truly THEIR problem. Equally, in the end, they who have rejected the Vicar of Christ might find they have also rejected their own salvation. That’s the way it works the last I heard; meaning, a true Pope was elected in conclave. There was no slight hint of coercion.

Yet some (who would be king?) reject him for another - saying they know better than the Holy Spirit and Holy Mother Church. It’s sad beyond all imagining and I can’t believe I’ve lived to see this day. Constantly, in these exchanges on this site, the talk from the radical traditionalists is:

“Lefebvre = good. Pope John Paul II = not.”

To that, I say forever: NO. The Lefebvre fans support a complete denial of God’s promises: to be with us in the Church, to protect the throne of Peter, to give us the eternal Truth Who is His Son and the Holy Spirit Who enlightens us forever and ever.

Terrifying concept.

 

[SFD]

Ironic. Most of the people defending the SSPX and others argue that we cannot assume invincible ignorance. That sword cuts both ways. If we can’t assume it for the pagan or the Protestant, can we assume it for an archbishop who did a willfully defiant act that led to an automatic excommunication had the invincible ignorance required to save him?

A mistake does not cut one off from the Church. This has nothing to do with invincible ignorance.

SFD

 

[JReducation]

Ironic. Most of the people defending the SSPX and others argue that we cannot assume invincible ignorance. That sword cuts both ways. If we can’t assume it for the pagan or the Protestant, can we assume it for an archbishop who did a willfully defiant act that led to an automatic excommunication had the invincible ignorance required to save him?

Chutzpah I would think. Matthew 7 says:

• 1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.*

STOP THE PRESSES

Did Archbishop Lefebvre defy the Pope? Yes.

Did this incur excommunication? Yes.

Does excommunication imply the loss of one’s soul? Not necessarily.

It is a belief that the individual in question is no longer in communion with the Church and remains outside the Church until such time as the error, whatever that may be, is corrected.

If it were an absolute belief of the Church that excommunication automatically includes damnation, the Holy Father would not have prayed for Archbishop Lefebvre’s soul at the time of his death. We also know that this was the case, as it was reported by the Vatican’s press secretary. They could have simply expressed their sorrow that the Archbishop had died outside the Church and left it at that.

Why would the Pope pray for a soul that he is certain is damned to hell? Popes are not usually idiots, especially these last five. We have had a few idiot popes, but not in a very long time.

I’m not breaking confidentiality here. This was in all of the local papers at the time. I believe it was around 1995 or 96. In addition, this Msgr. was my parish’s pastor at the time of the suicide and the Director of my kids’ school.

The Vicar General of our diocese committed suicide, many years ago. He left a note asking that he not be given a Christian burial. For all intent and purposes he excommunicated himself. After consultation with the Vatican, the local Bishop ordered a Christian funeral. It was the feeling of the local Bishop and the proper authorities in Rome agreed that the state of the individual’s soul was up to the mercy of God, not the judgment of men.

We can judge the action, but not the soul.

 

[Arnobius]

STOP THE PRESSES

Did Archbishop Lefebvre defy the Pope? Yes.

Did this incur excommunication? Yes.

Does excommunication imply the loss of one’s soul? Not necessarily.

It is a belief that the individual in question is no longer in communion with the Church and remains outside the Church until such time as the error, whatever that may be, is corrected.

If it were an absolute belief of the Church that excommunication automatically includes damnation, the Holy Father would not have prayed for Archbishop Lefebvre’s soul at the time of his death. We also know that this was the case, as it was reported by the Vatican’s press secretary. They could have simply expressed their sorrow that the Archbishop had died outside the Church and left it at that.

Why would the Pope pray for a soul that he is certain is damned to hell? Popes are not usually idiots, especially these last five. We have had a few idiot popes, but not in a very long time.

I’m not breaking confidentiality here. This was in all of the local papers at the time. I believe it was around 1995 or 96. In addition, this Msgr. was my parish’s pastor at the time of the suicide and the Director of my kids’ school.

The Vicar General of our diocese committed suicide, many years ago. He left a note asking that he not be given a Christian burial. For all intent and purposes he excommunicated himself. After consultation with the Vatican, the local Bishop ordered a Christian funeral. It was the feeling of the local Bishop and the proper authorities in Rome agreed that the state of the individual’s soul was up to the mercy of God, not the judgment of men.

We can judge the action, but not the soul.

Then I think you missed my point rather. I know it is possible for God to have mercy and do not judge Lefebvre’s soul.

I was pointing out the irony of the position of those who would damn millions of hell for the accident of being born in the wrong time or place while not considering a God who was that strict might be less than pleased with a schismatic archbishop.

 

[JReducation]

Then I think you missed my point rather. I know it is possible for God to have mercy and do not judge Lefebvre’s soul.

I was pointing out the irony of the position of those who would damn millions of hell for the accident of being born in the wrong time or place while not considering a God who was that strict might be less than pleased with a schismatic archbishop.

I’m supporting your position. God doesn’t work the way that we work. We need to stop making up rules for God. Let him judge souls according to his justice and mercy.

You can’t damn a non-believer to hell and assume it’s ok to send Lefebvre to Heaven or the other way around.

I agree with you. People must be consistent. Preferably, they should be consistent with the Gospel. It only speaks of one Judge of souls.

Personally, I believe that it is not our place to decide who goes to hell or heaven. There is only one just judge. So far, he’s done a good job. Let him keep it.

 

[SFD]

Then I think you missed my point rather. I know it is possible for God to have mercy and do not judge Lefebvre’s soul.

I was pointing out the irony of the position of those who would damn millions of hell for the accident of being born in the wrong time or place while not considering a God who was that strict might be less than pleased with a schismatic archbishop.

That position, that you appear not to accept is a Dogma of the Catholic Church. Can you see the irony? You can’t even accept this Dogma…and you so easily put a Catholic Archbishop who was merely keeping the Faith and providing for his flock (that was his obligation as a Priest and a Bishop) outside the Church.

Ironic indeed.

SFD

 

[JReducation]

Rest assured that neither he nor I are “rejecting the Church” by holding a lawful theological opinion. Are you saying that one goes to hell for a mistake?

SFD

SFO, I’d like to ask you three questions; but I do not wish to cause another debate or conflict. I want to understand your reasoning.

Do you truly believe that John Paul II was so cruel that he did not see the Archbishop’s good intentions?

My second question flows from the first; did John Paul II not have the legitimate authority to excommunicate the Archbishop if he (the Pope) considered the Archbishop’s actions as defiance?

Finally my third, was not John Paul II the legitimate Vicar of Christ to whom the Archbishop, even with his good intentions, which I do not doubt, had the obligation to obey?

I’m not passing judgment on the Archbishop’s soul. That job is taken.

Thanks.

 

[pnewton]

Rest assured that neither he nor I are “rejecting the Church” by holding a lawful theological opinion. Are you saying that one goes to hell for a mistake?

SFD

Depends on the nature of the mistake. Hell will be full of people who make the mistake of rejecting Christ, rejecting His Church,or some other mistake. The rich man made a mistake of ignoring his duty to his fellow man in the parable of Lazarus. The betrayal of Judas was a big mistake.

 

[JReducation]

These questions are for those on this thread who are defending Archbishop Lefebvre’s actions.

The Holy Father, who is the Vicar of Christ, the final authority on all matters concerning faith, morals and church discipline excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre.

Even the Archbishop himself would admit that the Pope is the legitimate successor of Peter.

Either the Archbishop believed that John Paul II was Peter and hence knew that he was breaking with the head of the Church or the Archbishop believed that Peter’s chair was empty and that John Paul II was not a legitimate pope.

If he believed the former, John Paul is Peter, then he knowingly broke with Peter.

QUESTION 1: If he believed the latter, John Paul is a false pope, then why didnt’ he say that directly to the College of Cardinals who had elected the pope?

I truly believe that Archbishop Lefebvre was a man in conflict. He wanted to preserve a tradition that the Pope didn’t want to preserve and he couldn’t quite bring himself to accusing John Paul II as a fraudulent pope.

His speech to the seminarians came pretty close to the latter, but stopped just short enough to stay on the safe side.

QUESTION 2: What is to be gained by advocating to undo changes that only the Pope has the power to undo, but is unwilling. Forget his reasons. Let’s focus on the fact. The Pope alone has the power to undo the changes of Vatican II and he is unwilling. The Church is not a democracy, it is a monarchy.

QUESTION 3: Why waste our time pushing an issue once the only person who has the power to do anything says “NO”? Why can’t we just let it go and trust in Christ’s promise that the Church, led by Peter, will never err?

I don’t know if this came out too clear. I hope it did.

 

[JReducation]

Depends on the nature of the mistake. Hell will be full of people who make the mistake of rejecting Christ, rejecting His Church,or some other mistake. The rich man made a mistake of ignoring his duty to his fellow man in the parable of Lazarus. The betrayal of Judas was a big mistake.

Only God knows for sure. Let’s not start listing the residents of hell.

The only thing that we know for sure is objective doctrine and morality. The state of each subject’s soul is a secret between he and God.

 

[pnewton]

Only God knows for sure. Let’s not start listing the residents of hell.

The only thing that we know for sure is objective doctrine and morality. The state of each subject’s soul is a secret between he and God.

I would never do that, just that they exist. the rich man was in the story Jesus told and Judas, well that is the only person that the Bible puts in the probable hell category. But I do believe it exists and many go there. I will let the names pend until the final judgement, lest my own name appear there.

 

[JReducation]

I would never do that, just that they exist. the rich man was in the story Jesus told and Judas, well that is the only person that the Bible puts in the probable hell category. But I do believe it exists and many go there. I will let the names pend until the final judgement, lest my own name appear there.

Lest your own name appears there?

What are you going to do, get a PO Box.

Just kidding.

 

[bear06]

I find it very interesting that the comments of Pius XII have been completely ignored in the conversation here. I’m not really sure how we wandered into whether Lefebvre is in hell or not. I’ve never really seen anyone make that argument. I think the argument is whether or not he is really excommunicated and/or very mistaken.

So here is what Pius XII had to say, again:

Pius XII to the Archbishop of Boston: “Those who expose themselves to the grave danger of opposing the Church must seriously reflect that once “Rome has spoken”, they may not disregard it even for reasons of good faith. Their bond with the Church and their duty of obedience are certainly stricter than they are for those who adhere to the Church “only by an unconscious desire”. They should understand that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused of culpable ignorance. They should therefore understand that the following principle applies to them without restriction: “Submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is necessary for salvation.”

Pius IX, “Quartus supra” (Jan. 6, 1873): “The Catholic Church has always regarded as schismatic those who stubbornly resist her legitimate prelates, and especially the supreme Pastor, refusing to carry out their orders and even recognize their authority. It is as contrary to the divine constitution of the Church as to the perpetual and constant Tradition, for anyone to prove the catholicity of his faith and truly call himself Catholic when he fails in obedience to the Apostolic See… he who abandons the Chair of Peter, on which the Church is founded, falsely persuades himself that he is in the Church, since he who raises a chair against the Chair of Peter is already a sinner and schismatic.

All these declarations are so weighty that the conclusion must be that anyone who has been declared schismatic by the Roman Pontiff must wholly cease usurping the name of Catholic as long as he fails to recognize and expressly revere his full authority.

But as the neo-schismatics can gain no advantage… they excuse themselves saying that the sentence of schism and of excommunication against them… was unjust and, consequently, invalid. They have even gone so far as to say that they could not submit to the sentence for fear that the faithful, deprived of their ministry, might embrace the cause of the heretics. But these are arguments of a new kind, totally unheard of and unknown to the Fathers of the Church.”

Pius IX. “Quae in Patriarchatu” (Sept. 1, 1876): “What is the point of loudly recognizing the dogma of the supremacy of Peter and of his successors? What is the point of repeated declarations of Catholic faith and of obedience to the Apostolic See, when these fine words are belied in act? Is not rebellion made more inexcusable by the fact of recognizing obedience as a duty? Furthermore, does not the authority of the Holy See extend to the measures we have had to take in sanctioning them? Or is it enough to be in communion of faith with this See, without submission and obedience — something which cannot he maintained without attacking the Catholic faith?.. It is a question of recognizing the authority of the Holy See, not only with regard to faith, but even with regard to discipline. He who denies this is heretical; he who recognizes this and stubbornly refuses to obey is worthy of anathema. Let those, therefore, who have strayed from the right path, envisaging things differently, hasten to return to the right way. Faith without charity is of no use.”

Of course, all of these quotes are proof that history repeats. He might as well have been talking to Lefebvre.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

STOP THE PRESSES

Did Archbishop Lefebvre defy the Pope? Yes.

JReducation,

I don’t know if you saw it, but I responded to you post addressed to me with respect to obedience to the Pope in post #144. To add to that post, I thought I would provide a few quotes. These quotes will show two things: 1.) It is certainly within the realm of possibility for a Pope to deviate from the faith, teach heresy, and become a heretic. These quotes both confirm that, as well as explain how a Catholic should respond of such takes place.

POPE ADRIAN VI (1522-1523) “If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can error even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1316-1334).” (Quaest. in IV Sententiam).

POPE ADRIAN VI: "After his death [Pope] Honorius was anathematized by the Eastern Church. We must remember that he was accused of heresy, a crime which legitimizes the resistance of inferiors to superiors, together with the rejection of their pernicious doctrines. (Allocution III, Lect. In Conc. VIII, act. VII)

POPE PAUL IV: *"In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind * is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfil our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling"(Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio ).

In addition to many other things, John Paul II signed an agreement - the Bellamand Agreement - in which it stated that seeking to convert the heretical and schismatic Orthodox was the wrong path to unity. It stated that they are a Church, just like the Catholics Church, and we should not attempt to convert them.

We could point to MANY reason that justify what Archbishop Lefebvre did to protect the faith, which was certainly justified due to the unusual circumstances and general apostasy. For whatever reason, John Paul II never took any effective actions. Maybe he felt as thought he could not, or maybe he beleived that the general apostasy was a “new springtim” for the Church. Whatever the reason was, he took no effective actions and thus the Church sunk father and father into confusion, with the effect of destroying the faith of untold millions of Catholic.

As I’ve said, thank heavens for Archbishop Lefebvre who will be vindicated by Rome itself (I predict) in the coming years. Then his enemies and detractors will do what they did when Rome came out and admitted, after 37 years, that “pro multis” had been incorrectly translated, and that the old Mass had never been forbidden (which is exactly contrary to what Rome said and implied during the entire reign of John Paul II): they will go silent and hope everyone forgets the position they held.**

 

[JReducation]

JReducation,

I don’t know if you saw it, but I responded to you post addressed to me with respect to obedience to the Pope in post #144. To add to that post, I thought I would provide a few quotes. These quotes will show two things: 1.) It is certainly within the realm of possibility for a Pope to deviate from the faith, teach heresy, and become a heretic. These quotes both confirm that, as well as explain how a Catholic should respond of such takes place.

POPE ADRIAN VI (1522-1523) “If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can error even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1316-1334).” (Quaest. in IV Sententiam).

POPE ADRIAN VI: "After his death [Pope] Honorius was anathematized by the Eastern Church. We must remember that he was accused of heresy, a crime which legitimizes the resistance of inferiors to superiors, together with the rejection of their pernicious doctrines. (Allocution III, Lect. In Conc. VIII, act. VII)

POPE PAUL IV: "In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind * is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule*, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfil our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling"(Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio ).

In addition to many other things, John Paul II signed an agreement - the Bellamand Agreement - in which it stated that seeking to convert the heretical and schismatic Orthodox was the wrong path to unity. It stated that they are a Church, just like the Catholics Church, and we should not attempt to convert them.

We could point to MANY reason that justify what Archbishop Lefebvre did to protect the faith, which was certainly justified due to the unusual circumstances and general apostasy. For whatever reason, John Paul II never took any effective actions. Maybe he felt as thought he could not, or maybe he beleived that the general apostasy was a “new springtim” for the Church. Whatever the reason was, he took no effective actions and thus the Church sunk father and father into confusion, with the effect of destroying the faith of untold millions of Catholic.

.

First, I apologize if you responded to me earlier and I missed your post.

Second, I will disagree that Pope John Paul II falls into the category of heretic. For example, what he said of the Eastern Orthodox Church makes sanse. There is no need to convert them, as they are Apostolic. The separaton between them and us has to do with the primacy of Peter. Therefore, the road to union is not through conversion, but through dialogue until an understanding of Peter’s prmacy is understood and accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church as it is by the Roman Church.

On the other hand, it makes no sense to bring the Orthodox into communion with Peter, if we are the first to question his legitimate authority. We have to accept it ourselves first.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

First, I apologize if you responded to me earlier and I missed your post.

Second, I will disagree that Pope John Paul II falls into the category of heretic. For example, what he said of the Eastern Orthodox Church makes sanse. There is no need to convert them, as they are Apostolic. The separaton between them and us has to do with the primacy of Peter. Therefore, the road to union is not through conversion, but through dialogue until an understanding of Peter’s prmacy is understood and accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church as it is by the Roman Church.

Your post made my point better than any of the quotes I provided. The Orthodox are both heretics and schismatics. They are heretics for many reasons, several of which are that they deny the Primacy of the Pope and Papal Infallibility. Those are truths that have been revealed by God and defined de fide. Anyone who rejectes either of those dogmas is indeed a heretic. The Orthodox reject both of them, many others, and all of the councils of the past 1,000 years.

Rejecting the Primacy of the Pope and refusing submission to him also makes them schismatics. They do not accept the authority of the Pope but refuse obedience on this or that point: they reject the Primacy outright.

It is de fide Church dogma that heretics and schismatics are not part of the Church, and as such will go to hell. If you need a quotes to back up what I just said, let me know. There’s plenty of them.

Don’t follow the wolves into perdition. God has allowed a great crisis to shake his Church, and most will be damned as a result.

You said there is no reason to convert the orthodox because they ae “apostolic”. If you mean that they have apostolic succession, that is true… but so does the SSPX.

Don’t you find it a little interesting that the wolves claim that the SSPX is in schism but not the Orthodox?

Please don’t let the wolves lead you to perdition with them.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

JReducation,

The following is a quote from the new code of canon law:

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

 

[Sure]

The really comical thing in all of this is that, if Pope John Paul II had been more “hardline” and less ecumenical, he would have declared the entire SSPX “anathema and damned” and warned the faithful under pain of excommunication not to attend their illicit and sacriligious Masses!

Lucky for the SSPX, JPII wanted a dialogue to bring them back, earlier Pope’s would have had none of it.

Bear06,

Thank you for posting those quotes. Anyone attempting to justify Lefebvre’s action has been thoroughly destroyed by the words of the Pope’s they admire most. The irony is rich!

I notice that no one - not one single person - attempted to answer my earlier question: If “grave fear” (as judged by oneself) renders one’s excommunication invalid, then could Arch Milingo consecrate some bishops tomorrow without incurring excommunication??? Why not???

I’d love to hear the explanation.

This all comes down to simple cafeteria catholicism…the SSPX and their defenders are proportionalists who pick and choose what parts of Church law will be followed and what parts will be ignored. It is indeed a sad sickness and truly the work of the devil.

God bless!

 

[Arnobius]

That position, that you appear not to accept is a Dogma of the Catholic Church. Can you see the irony? You can’t even accept this Dogma…and you so easily put a Catholic Archbishop who was merely keeping the Faith and providing for his flock (that was his obligation as a Priest and a Bishop) outside the Church.

Ironic indeed.

SFD

Actually, I was citing Feeneyism, which was most definitely condemned by the Church, so I at least can say I do not presume to pass judgment on which Church teachings are authentic or not based on whether or not I like them.

Lefebvre was not providing for “his” flock. He was a retired bishop, in disobedience since 1975 and finally excommunicated because of his schismatic act of illicitly consecrating four bishops. Based on the logic of the SSPX and sede vacantists who would declare Popes heretical based on their actions, how then should we judge a schismatic act? He had no such authority to act as he did, and the Popes he considered to be true popes certainly would have condemned him for acting as he did.