Yes, planning for the next pandemic of course. And then there's this ..

livemint.com/…dia-s-digital-health-id-system-11632934227667.html

That's not fair to Cardinal Vigano @"Ave Crux" :D Don't use the man in an effort to legitimize Lefebvre, The Excommunicated Schismatic. Cardinal Vigano remains in full communion with The Church and submits to the pope. He, himself is part of The Church's lawful hierarchy.

Cdl. Vigano may dislike Pope Francis. So do many here. He may dislike much of what has happened to The Church through inept and malign leadership.So do many here. But he hasn't broken from The Church and started assuming authority he doesn't have the way Abp. Lefebvre did.

"Called it "Schismatic act" that is double speak...

Pero no, @Joao H Machado It's a direct quote from Pope John Paul II. So is this: "Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law."

Notice: Pope John Paul II did not say "a" schism. If he had, someone could rightly argue he was speaking in generalities. However in the previous sentence before the one I just quoted, Pope John Paul II explicitly states, "the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre" and in the next sentence describes it as "the schism"..

So, Archbishop Lefebvre's disobedience was described as a "schismatic act" and Archbishop Lefebvre's movement was described as "the schism". Pope John Paul II was explicit on both points.

"An act in of itself does not necessarily indicate anything."

In this case, and in many others, it does. Acts can, and frequently do, indicate intent. A man making lewd comments at your wife in front of you is indicating two things. He has no respect for her, no respect for you, and no fear of your reaction.

"I can stab another man through the heart with a knife, and you can call it an act of murder..."

Strawman Fallacy Alert! I "can" call it many things, but I have not done so and you should not suggest, even hypothetically, that I would do so. Me? I'm far to cautious a legalist to do so..

Using your example, I can say with full certainty your act indicates you did serious bodily harm and he'll die from your act if it's left untreated.

"An act only tells you what transpired, not the reasons why."

I'm going to ignore the implicit error in that statement because you've acknowledged something very important and I quote you: "An act only tells you what transpired"

In this case Abp. Lefebvre's act was schismatic and what transpired was a rare, and explicitly confirmed public excommunication from The Church.

"Even with English as a second lanuguage, it is clear that the only thing that was condemned on AB Lefevre was disobience, not schism."

...contradicted by the paragraph you cited AND the sentence you omitted. "Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law."

The schism... not "a" schism or even "schism" in general... the schism, the schism defined as Abp. Lefebvre' s movement, i.e. the SSPX.

The Pope's terminology contradicts your interpretation of what Abp. Lefebvre's actions.

"Disobedience is not an automatic excommunication."

Of course not. Abp. Lefebvre was excommunicated under Canon Law 1382. However, in confirming that excommunication, Pope John Paul II defines the nature of that disobedience, i.e. "a schismatic act" and "the schism" was Abp. Lefebvre's movement.

"If you can't see that AB Lefevre was the one that upheld and passed on the Tradition of the Church, and that the Vatican are the ones in schism, you really are a bigger ignoramus that I thought."

I can't see what never happened in the first place. SSPX followers always re-write history the way you are doing.

According to your story-telling . "AB Lefevre was the one that upheld and passed on the Tradition of the Church". --and that simply is not true. Other priests continued celebrating the traditional Latin Mass after Vatican Council II and long before Abp. Lefebvre was excommunicated.

Other priests and other priestly groups "upheld and passed on the Tradition of the Church" without falling into schism, either.

Like so many SSPX apologists, you are blinding yourself to Church history as Lefebvre blinded himself to Church law.

Re: Archbishop Lefebvre: The question ultimately - and logically - is "was it a schismatic act" according to Canon law? That is, like any law, does there exist a clause or precedent that allows for unusual and unforeseen circumstances? The answer is yes there is: supplied jurisdiction when faced with an emergency. His Grace, Archbishop Lefebrve in all sincerity believed he had no choice in consecrating the four bishops; he believed it to be a necessity in order to protect and propagate the faith. Was such a belief "in an emergency" justified? I think you would have to be blind not to agree now that there was indeed "an emergency" unfolding within the Church....the fruits speak for themselves. Either way, why trash his name even if you personally do not agree (understand) his actions. He was trying to do the right thing in the midst of a revolution - God bless His Grace for that :)