I know there was an old thread where this was discussed but it wasn't really answered.

My question is this:

Under Canon 1323 s. 4 & 7 one can not be excommunicated l. s. if one believes oneself to be acting under necessity.

Archbishop Lefebrve claimed he saw his actions as necessary.

Now the question is do these Canons hold more weight than the authority of the Pope?

St. JP II said that a l.s. excommunication was incurred, does that de facto entail canon 1323 can't be applied to Lefebvre or was St. JP II's declaration still subject to canon 1323?

Canon 1323 doesn't say that, exactly.

Can. 16 §1 Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by that person to whom the legislator entrusts the power of authentic interpretation.

So it's up to the legislator (in this case, the pope) to determine whether 1323 applies. He said it didn't.

So, I guess the answer to the OP is, "Yes, he was. And still is."

It seems odd that there are canons which protect people in x circumstances if they can just be overriden.

But you are saying even without explicitly addressing the case based on 1323 JP II'S declaration rules it out?

What difference does excommunication make after death?

By that reasoning, no one has ever been excommunicated, not even Martin Luther.

One passes into death without the benefit of the sacraments and in a state of mortal sin. I believe.

Excommunication wouldn't dictate the state of the soul.

Didn't say it did. But, without the sacraments, the state of the soul is whatever the state of the soul is. From excommunication until death.

An excommunicated person is not definitively in a state of mortal sin, especially if the excommunication was made in error.

No one has suggested that being excommunicated puts one in a state of mortal sin, what we are saying is that if an excommunicated person has no access to the sacraments and as a result dies in a state of mortal sin without sacramental confession...well.

But what difference did the post-mortem excommunication of Origen or Pope Honorius make then?

Only the living recieve sacraments, even if Ott doesn't think that's de fide

Origen wasn't excommunicated, I believe. The excommunication of Pope Honorius was just an extra little parting gift meant to emphasize how out of bounds he was.

Origen was never excommunicated. They were both condemned long after their deaths when excommunication would have been irrelevant. You can't excommunicate a dead person. Any excommunication would have been purely symbolic. And, in both cases, there is a serious question as to whether they were really guilty of the things of which they were accused. This is especially true of Origen, who was condemned for allegedly holding opinions which can not be found in any of his extant works.

There really isn't a question in the case of Pope Honorius.

They can still be given the grace to make a perfect act of contrition.

FJ

Which would be a miracle, as a perfect act of contrition is approximately as rare as flapping your arms and flying to the moon. If you have to appeal to a miracle to make something seem plausible, it is probably not something that actually happens.

This is not the case.

If perfect acts of contrition were common, or easy, there would be no need for the sacrament of confession. I doubt that even one out of every 1 billion people has ever performed a perfect act of contrition. In fact, probably the only people who have ever done so are canonized saints.

http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessa ... ber=370862

ETA:
A perfect act of contrition includes at least the virtual intention to go to confession at the next reasonable opportunity. "Virtual" is there to cover a person who does not know that confession is necessary but would go if he did know.