Cardinal Castrillon: SSPX Not in Schism

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Why? The Remnant isn’t a sedevacanist publication. It has lots of good articles from a traditional viewpoint. I guess that liberal Catholics wouldn’t enjoy them, though, anymore than traditional Catholics would read a liberal Catholic publication.

Not picking on you paramedicgirl but…

Why must we separate ourselves into groups? Why can’t we just all be Catholics?

And who decides who belongs to which group?

I see myself as a traditional Catholic but I know most of those in that group do not agree with me because I do not have a preference for the TLM (the sole mark of a “traditional Catholic” to many of them).

I believe that this is the root of many of the issues in society today, the need to label everyone.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I see myself as a traditional Catholic but I know most of those in that group do not agree with me because I do not have a preference for the TLM (the sole mark of a “traditional Catholic” to many of them).

That’s me, as well, Byz. It appears, from their attitude, that we may as well be McBrien, Chichester, and Rohr!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

He’s imply in error, but then, so usually is Cardinal Kasper. One pope trumps an entire handful of Cardinals. The good Cardinal’s opinion, given in an interview, doesn’t weigh a lot compared to a papal edict.

So just how responsible - never mind commonsensical - is it, for a (still-living) Cardinal to be let off the leash to contradict a (dead) Pope ?​

How are those of us who are not canon layers - i.e., all Catholics, except a few thousand - to know which judgements about the SSPX are right (if any) & which are wrong (if any) ?

Or is the Church so terminally dysfunctional (to put it very politely indeed ) that who says what about whom or what is of absolutely no importance ?

[Edited by Moderator]

 

[JKirkLVNV]

So just how responsible - never mind commonsensical - is it, for a (still-living) Cardinal to be let off the leash to contradict a (dead) Pope ?​

How are those of us who are not canon layers - i.e., all Catholics, except a few thousand - to know which judgements about the SSPX are right (if any) & which are wrong (if any) ?

Or is the Church so terminally dysfunctional (to put it very politely indeed ) that who says what about whom or what is of absolutely no importance ?

[Edited by Moderator]

I reckon we should go with Ecclesia Dei. As I’ve said, the rest of us don’t fall over in a swoon when Cardinal Kasper gives vent to his latest enthusiasm.

 

[maryceleste]

I see myself as a traditional Catholic but I know most of those in that group do not agree with me because I do not have a preference for the TLM (the sole mark of a “traditional Catholic” to many of them).

If your definition of a traditional Catholic doesn’t require a preference for the TLM, then surely most of those in that group would agree that you are one of “them.” (As labeled by you, of course. )

I believe that this is the root of many of the issues in society today, the need to label everyone.

Personally, I think we need *more *labels. I buy my label-maker tape in bulk at Costco. I find it helps me deal with the complexities of life.

David is a Byzantine Catholic Carmelite pre-novice. I’m printing that one up right now.

Brian Mershon is a traditional Catholic journalist, husband, and father of six, living in South Carolina. I’ll have to make that one in two pieces, otherwise it will overflow the buffer.

Dario Castrillon Hoyos is a Colombian, a Catholic Cardinal, a Doctor of Canon Law, the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, the current Cardinal Protodeacon, and the President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. Oy vey. Time to start using abbreviations!

P.S. I’m also making up a bunch of “schismatic” labels, but I doubt anyone will want to claim them.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

David is a Byzantine Catholic Carmelite pre-novice. I’m printing that one up right now.

This is not a label. This tells you who I am. To be a Byzantine Catholic one must be enrolled in one of the Byzantine Catholic Churches sui iuris, it is a statement of fact that can be checked, it is not some subjective label someone choses to place on themselves.

Same thing goes with “Carmelite pre-novice”. I am in the pre-novitiate program of the Order of the Brothers of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel, Province of the Most Pure Heart of Mary.

Of the other two you listed, they are all statements of fact except for the “traditional Catholic journalist”. The traditional part is subjective and self selected.

It is my stand that every Catholic who is faithful to the Teachings of the Catholic Church is traditional as it is part of tradition to be obedient.

Or else we could say that those who preferred the TLM when it was first mandated for the whole Latin Church were liberal Catholics and those who preferred their own local variation (at the time) where the traditionalists. Which would mean that the current self naming traditionalists are nothing more than liberal Catholics.
%between%

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Personally, I think we need *more *labels. I buy my label-maker tape in bulk at Costco. I find it helps me deal with the complexities of life.

This guy disagreed:

“Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,” only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself." Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum

 

[down_under]

The SSPX isn’t in schism, Vegas. The Novus Ordo bishops are.

actually sspx is in schism. I have read several books on the subject. it is a fact. The last straw but by no means the first was the ordination of the aforementioned bishops. They are not in union with the church. yes it is possible to go to a mass by sspx and not go to hell but that is cutting a pretty thin hair. It is not recommended you attend a SSPX mass. That is the papal recommendation. I wouldn’t contridict that. It also means you attend a SSPX mass at your own risk. No offence to those who may get offended by that statement. I mean no personnel disrespect. But that is the current factual state of things. regardless of how we want to put a positive light on things.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

He’s imply in error, but then, so usually is Cardinal Kasper. One pope trumps an entire handful of Cardinals. The good Cardinal’s opinion, given in an interview, doesn’t weigh a lot compared to a papal edict.

I will never understand why John Paul II felt the need to issue some harshly-worded motu proprio “warning” the faithful to stay far away from a Society whose sole purpose is to preserve the Mass, the Sacraments, and traditional morality, yet appoint someone like Kasper as cardinal and the head of a Curial office. What is more dangerous for one’s soul: To attend the Mass of the Church offered by a holy SSPX priest, or to follow Kasper’s erroneous teachings ecumenism, summed up in this quote of his:

**“today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being Catholics.”

**

 

[paramedicgirl]

actually sspx is in schism. I have read several books on the subject. it is a fact. The last straw but by no means the first was the ordination of the aforementioned bishops. They are not in union with the church. yes it is possible to go to a mass by sspx and not go to hell but that is cutting a pretty thin hair. It is not recommended you attend a SSPX mass. That is the papal recommendation. I wouldn’t contridict that. It also means you attend a SSPX mass at your own risk. No offence to those who may get offended by that statement. I mean no personnel disrespect. But that is the current factual state of things. regardless of how we want to put a positive light on things.

Can you show where a Church document definitively says that the laity are in schism?

 

[Frank_Fenn]

Can you show where a Church document definitively says that the laity are in schism?

My wife stated that someone here, think it was a moderator told her that the canonical status of the SSPX laity has not been determined. This was in a post before she resigned from CAF.

 

[Sedes]

I will never understand why John Paul II felt the need to issue some harshly-worded motu proprio “warning” the faithful to stay far away from a Society whose sole purpose is to preserve the Mass, the Sacraments, and traditional morality, yet appoint someone like Kasper as cardinal and the head of a Curial office. What is more dangerous for one’s soul: To attend the Mass of the Church offered by a holy SSPX priest, or to follow Kasper’s erroneous teachings ecumenism, summed up in this quote of his:

"today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being Catholics."

Simple answer: John Paul II had a problem with traditional Catholicism, not with Cardinal Kasper’s modernist ideas.

 

[bear06]

Can you show where a Church document definitively says that the laity are in schism?

You’ll never find a blanket document on that one. All we have is the warning:

The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur ipso facto the very grave penalty of excommunication

sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id57.html

We have know knowledge of how many people have been ipso facto excommunicated. We do know that those in the Lincoln Diocese who did not cease attending the chapels were.

 

[sparc]

Hopefully the MP will clear things up once and for all.

 

[maryceleste]

(To David: The definition of “label” is “a descriptive or identifying word or phrase.” It’s not a pejorative term. To avoid confusion about the labeling of labels, perhaps you could come up with a more specific label to describe or identify the type of labels you dislike. )

We have know knowledge of how many people have been ipso facto excommunicated. We do know that those in the Lincoln Diocese who did not cease attending the chapels were.

Needless to say, the SSPX would argue that these declarations of excommunication are invalid. The Vatican did overturn the ones in Hawaii, but AFAIK has remained silent on the Lincoln case (though they recently upheld the excommunication of the Call to Action members). Of course, the folks in Hawaii had a more obvious case for a state of necessity… they were living on an island that, from what I’ve been told, had nothing but modernist liturgies. Catholics in Lincoln have plenty of options for Sunday Mass, confession, and so forth.

BTW, I’d never read Bishop Bruskewitz’s letters to the SSPX until just now; they’re quite upsetting, and not what I would have expected based on his reputation. His wording – e.g., referring to the organization as a “non Catholic cult” (in the July 1996 one) – would suggest, to put it mildly, a lack of precision, not to mention pastoral sensitivity. (If someone has evidence that the SSPX is being selective in what they’ve posted, I’d appreciate it if you could share links to the missing documents.)

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

(
BTW, I’d never read Bishop Bruskewitz’s letters to the SSPX until just now; they’re quite upsetting, and not what I would have expected based on his reputation. His wording – e.g., referring to the organization as a “non Catholic cult” (in the July 1996 one) – would suggest, to put it mildly, a lack of precision, not to mention pastoral sensitivity. (If someone has evidence that the SSPX is being selective in what they’ve posted, I’d appreciate it if you could share links to the missing documents.)

Bishop Bruskewitz is correct and has excommunicated the SSPX in his Diocese which has been upheld by the Vatican. I believe the laity that goes to the SSPX are also under this excommunication.

He is correct that they are a non Catholic cult in that they operate outside of the Catholic Church. The SSPX functions without facilities from the bishop. So their Mass, while valid, is illicit. Their baptisms are no different than if you or I baptised someone. All other sacraments performed are invalid.

Confirmation, Confession, and Marriages need faculties to be validly performed, something which the SSPX does not have.

And then there is the fact that the SSPX grants annulments, another thing that is invalid and problematic.

 

[paramedicgirl]

You’ll never find a blanket document on that one. All we have is the warning:

I know.

We have know knowledge of how many people have been ipso facto excommunicated. We do know that those in the Lincoln Diocese who did not cease attending the chapels were.

I know.

 

[maryceleste]

He is correct that they are a non Catholic cult in that they operate outside of the Catholic Church.

It’s pretty clear that Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos doesn’t agree with this opinion (see his remarks on “the language of ecumenism” in the article), and he’s had much more training and experience with these issues than Bishop Bruskewitz has. I’m going to go with the Cardinal on this one.

Who knows, maybe the Bishop himself has changed his views. It’s been many years since he wrote that letter.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

And then there is the fact that the SSPX grants annulments, another thing that is invalid and problematic.

Although, frankly, if SSPX says that a marraige was invalid, I’d be far more inclined to believe it than if it came from the mainstream American Church.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It’s pretty clear that Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos doesn’t agree with this opinion (see his remarks on “the language of ecumenism” in the article), and he’s had much more training and experience with these issues than Bishop Bruskewitz has. I’m going to go with the Cardinal on this one.

Who knows, maybe the Bishop himself has changed his views. It’s been many years since he wrote that letter.

Yet Bishop Bruskewitz’s excommunications have been upheld by the Vatican and has not been withdrawn by the bishop.

I would like to see the whole context of what Cardinal Hoyos had to say and all questions (exact wording) asked and there complete answers to really see if the Cardinal is saying what the article is saying he said. I find it odd that a Cardinal would contradict the Church in such a way but then when it happens on the “liberal” side many people around here scream but when it happens on their side they act like it is the Truth no matter what the Pope (or the Church) have said in the past.

What this comes down to for me is that this is the personal opinion of this Cardinal (if he really said this) and it in no way changes what Pope John Paul II has said.

The SSPX prove they are in schism by no submitting to the local bishops and setting up a competing structure and offering invalid sacraments.