CathInfo.com

Oh so that would include Pius XII under the anathema too, according to your logic? Well, well, well...

Trento,

You're just "posturing" that St. Pope Pius V's Papal Bull doesn't apply to Pope Pius XII... but it does.

This denial of the Canonically codified Mass is a critical position the SSPX maintains because of their old compromise to the Bugnini/Montini 1962 Missal.

Bottomline, SSPX altar missals are without Quo Primum.

 

St. Pope Pius V's Bull, was our spiritual inoculation against attacks on the Liturgy that he knew were coming in this purgative, "5th Age of the Church".

Pius XII's Liturgical compromise is not a question of the validity of his papacy, but of the errors in his pontificate, of which there were many.

For example, he brought Msgr. Annibale Bugnini into Rome to Revise the Sacred Liturgy.  


Bugnini's ultimate masonic mission was to desacralize the Holy Mass, which he eventually did with the Novus ordo missae.

In addition, Pius XII approved of Opus Dei, the masonic apostolate of the crypto jew and fake saint, Josemaria Escriva. 


This forum's archives has a topic of over 56 pages of posts dissecting his organization's infiltration into the Catholic Church.


Link: Opus Dei - page 56 - Members Only - Catholic Info



Trento, If you're ever interested in starting a debate on Pius XII's papacy on Cathinfo... you will have many takers.

Qui Episcopum ad civile tribunal vocat, ipso facto excommunicatione speciali modo Sedi Apostolicae reservata plectitur.

Canon 2341 assigns a single penalty, excommunicatione speciali modo Sedi Apostolicae reservata, for summoning any bishop before a civil court, and unlike Canons 2331 or 2343 it contains no hierarchical distinctions whatsoever, making your claim of a “lesser reservation” simply incompatible with the text.

Slap this in Google Translate (it's getting pretty good now).

2341  Si quis contra praescriptum can. 120 ausus fuerit ad iudicem laicuм trahere aliquem ex S. R. E. Cardinalibus vel Legatis Sedis Apostolicae, vel Officialibus maioribus Romanae Curiae ob negotia ad eorum munus pertinentia, vel Ordinarium proprium, contrahit ipso facto excommunicationem Sedi Apostolicae speciali modo reservatam; si alium Episcopum etiam mere titularem, vel Abbatem aut Praelatum nullius, vel aliquem ex supremis religionum iuris pontificii Superioribus, excommunicationem latae sententiae Sedi Apostolicae simpliciter reservatam; demum si, non obtenta ab Ordinario loci licentia, aliam personam privilegio fori fruentem, clericus quidem incurrit ipso facto in suspensionem ab officio reservatam Ordinario, laicus autem congruis poenis pro gravitate culpae a proprio Ordinario puniatur.

Special Mode Reservation -- Cardinals, Legates of the Holy See, Major Officials of the Roman Curia. his own Ordinary
Simple Mode Reservation -- Any Other Bishop, even merely Titular, an Abbot or Prelate in charge of no one
... Suspension from Office and other TBD by his Ordinary -- anyone else who's subject to Canon Law

So it says here that you get a simpliciter reservatam (to the Holy See) excommunication for bringing anyone to the court, even if they're a "Prelate of no one" (which seems to suggest even if they have no ordinary jurisdicition or MIGHT be synonymous with being at least a "merely titular" bishops, not sure).

Where there might be some wiggle room is whether someone must be a bishops with some kind of rank, at least Titular ... since +Lefebvre had resigned his positions before the Nine brought their suit.  I believe that they would certainly have incurred the last part, suspension from office etc. ... except of course, Traditional priests don't really have office and are in a quasi-suspended state anyway.

yep, regarding matters that are pertinent to the excercise of their offices

So, it's not subject to these extreme penalties if the matter is unrelated to the bishop being a bishop, but as a private person.  So, for instance, if the bishop came to your house and vandalized your car or molested your children, or something ... that's completely outside any activity related / pertinent to his exercise of his office, but merely a personal act.  It's quite clear that these lawsuits regarding the properties were in this category.  +Lefebvre wasn't, for instance, acquiring rental properties or vacations homes.  I think they could try to wiggle out of it based on a claim that he had no "authority" to establish these things, but that's not the intent of this phrase here "negotia pertinentia" is a very broad expression where any matters that pertain to their office (in this case episcopal), to distinguish them from entirely secular matters.

Property is not a spiritual matter.