@FrancosGhost@countmaculad@EmiteRose >he determined it the moment he said it would be the case
So he changed the meaning of the words of the canon while simultaneously appealing to the canon? How does that make any sense? What I don't get is why he would argue rom canon law while also overwriting it when it suits
@FrancosGhost@countmaculad@EmiteRose When has he determined that? And the canon in question has many reasons for the exception, not just "not knowing better"
@FrancosGhost@countmaculad@EmiteRose That's what I said, so the grounds for the excommunication are to be found in and argued from canon law, not a unilateral decision from Leo using his authority as Pope. Canon law itself, like Agiat said when he mentioned canon 1323, lay out exceptions to the latae sententiae
@Hildifons159911@robbertleusink@countmaculad That's exactly why Rome is basing their position on a supposed automatic excommunication and not an actual canonical trial btw, they don't want a trial because that'll force them to lay out their position clearly which they're seemingly allergic to
@FrancosGhost@countmaculad@EmiteRose This would be true if the excommunication being argued for by Rome itself were imposed by an authority (ferendae sententiae) and not an automatic excommunication because of a violation of canon law (latae sententiae), like in this case
@TradDesigner@ProtecttheFaith >Pope St Pius X would have excommunicated them for taking drastic measures in response to a crisis that he wouldn't have allowed to fester in the first place
Really?
@codedcanticles@TaylorRMarshall What changed is that his jewish genes kicked in the second he was offered money to run lip service for "worst case Prevost", like he called him during the conclave