Excommunication

[palmas85]

Any thoughts on the recent words of Cardinal Castrillon?

In an interview published in the March 28 edition of L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, Cardinal Castrillon said the Oasis of Jesus the Priest monastery of 30 cloistered nuns in Spain “has already been recognized and regularized” by his office and “there are cases of American, German and French groups” who have begun the process.

T**he cardinal insisted that the only traditionalists excommunicated were the four bishops ordained by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988 without Vatican permission.
**
The priests who have followed those bishops, he said, “are only suspended,” and so the Masses they celebrate “are without a doubt valid, but not licit.” The religious who have followed the schismatic bishops need to have their congregations or monasteries recognized by the Vatican, he said.

That seems to fly right in the face of those who claim that all followers and members of the SSPX were in fact excommunicated.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The claim is not that the priests and followers were excommunicated by the decree of 1988. Rather, it is that it is highly probable (and according to the PCILT is, in light of this high probability, to be held that) they have subsequently incurred excommunication by adhering to/supporting the schism effected in 1988.

 

[Walking_Home]

The claim is not that the priests and followers were excommunicated by the decree of 1988. Rather, it is that it is highly probable (and according to the PCILT is, in light of this high probability, to be held that) they have subsequently incurred excommunication by adhering to/supporting the schism effected in 1988.

---

I don’t believe the Card said that now did he. If there is one who would know the internal relationship between Rome and the SSPX (besides the current Pope) – it would be he. Seems that you are imposing what YOU want to happen — over what the Card. actually did say.

 

[markadm]

I don’t believe the Card said that now did he. If there is one who would know the internal relationship between Rome and the SSPX (besides the current Pope) – it would be he. Seems that you are imposing what YOU want to happen — over what the Card. actually did say.

I agree. Despite what we may wish to read into it, or what we may wish to read out of it, the Cardinal appears to be very matter-of-fact in this interview (unless the English translation differs substantially from the original, which, knowing Gregor, is unlikely).

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

The claim is not that the priests and followers were excommunicated by the decree of 1988. Rather, it is that it is highly probable (and according to the PCILT is, in light of this high probability, to be held that) they have subsequently incurred excommunication by adhering to/supporting the schism effected in 1988.

Let’s not forget that the same Cardinal has spoke out numerous time in the past few years saying that the SSPX is not a true “schism”, which is correct. So, one who adheres to the SSPX is not adhering to a schism.

 

[the_mantis29]

“there are cases of American, German and French groups” who have begun the process.

Does Our Lady Help of Christians in Garden Grove, CA included in these case?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I know His Eminence does not agree with the competing theory of the PCILT, but I wanted to point out that the argument he was supposed to have put to rest - “that all followers and members of the SSPX were in fact excommunicated” - was not, “in fact,” the argument of many posters on these forums.

Yes, the cardinal was very matter of fact. He said, “Certainly neither the priests nor the faithful are excommunicated.” Since he has never claimed to be able to read souls, though, the only other way he could know this with certainty - especially since he’s never even met the vast majority of them - seems to be to say that it is impossible to adhere to the schism brought about through the consecration of the four SSPX bishops. The counterposition to Cdl. Castrillon Hoyos’ is not that every member and supporter of the SSPX is certainly excommunicated, but that 1) it is possible to adhere to the schism created in 1988 and 2) it seems more probable that some, even most of the SSPX clergy do adhere to this than that they do not. “The SSPX” need not be in schism for many of its members to be.

Now, the point of this thread is that the cardinal’s remarks are supposed to be able to put this issue to rest because he is in charge of the dicastery overseeing relations with traditionalists of all stripes. Yet if a cardinal from another dicastery made unofficial remarks in an interview that contrasted with the previous official judgments of the Holy See, would we have the same assumption that his unofficial remarks have overriding power? Quite often we see the argument that despite the apparent contradiction of Cdl. Castrillon Hoyos’ statements with, say, the official decision of the PCILT: “Well, since he’s the one in charge of this stuff he must just know better and understand why that previous decision doesn’t hold weight.” How many, though, would be willing to employ that same argument to back up Cdl. Kaspar’s remarks on Judaism? The difference between the two cardinals is that the Columbian is assuredly not a heretic, whereas the German most likely is, so I’m not trying to paint with the same brush in that regard, but I am trying to point to the weakness of using an argument from authority in the case of the PCED’s president’s unofficial remarks, especially when the cardinal is not officially exercising that authority.

 

[I_Believe]

Any thoughts on the recent words of Cardinal Castrillon?

The naysayers seem to be forgetting that this isn’t the first time Hoyos has said this.

If his words were misleading, then surely Pope Benedict would silence such talk by now. I can’t find the source, but recently, the Pope himself said he doesn’t even want to hear the words Schism or Excommunicated.

As Hoyos has said, it’s an internal matter. With all the hatred directed toward catholics today, why do so many catholics frown on the possibility that fellow catholics who display a level of devotion to the faith seldom seen in the average diocean parish, will be welcomed back in full communion ?

Could the answer be that Traditional Catholicism isn’t “fun”, and is quite demanding ?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The naysayers seem to be forgetting that this isn’t the first time Hoyos has said this.

If his words were misleading, then surely Pope Benedict would silence such talk by now. I can’t find the source, but recently, the Pope himself said he doesn’t even want to hear the words Schism or Excommunicated.

As Hoyos has said, it’s an internal matter. With all the hatred directed toward catholics today, why do so many catholics frown on the possibility that fellow catholics who display a level of devotion to the faith seldom seen in the average diocean parish, will be welcomed back in full communion ?

Could the answer be that Traditional Catholicism isn’t “fun”, and is quite demanding ?

Once again: should we also presume that since the popes have not publicly repudiated Cdl. Kaspar’s comments on Judaism (or Protestantism) that they are the official position of the Church? He has far more statements on record concerning these issues, and thus many more that have a robust flavor of heresy about them. Yet he’s still got his job and no one is correcting him. “If his words were misleading, then surely Pope Benedict would silence such talk by now.” You’re free to craft your argument in such a way, but I do hope you’ll employ it consistently across the board.

PS - I, for one, am eagerly awaiting the return of the SSPX and similar groups to the bosom of the Church.

 

[I_Believe]

Once again: should we also presume that since the popes have not publicly repudiated Cdl. Kaspar’s comments on Judaism (or Protestantism) that they are the official position of the Church? He has far more statements on record concerning these issues, and thus many more that have a robust flavor of heresy about them. Yet he’s still got his job and no one is correcting him. “If his words were misleading, then surely Pope Benedict would silence such talk by now.” You’re free to craft your argument in such a way, but I do hope you’ll employ it consistently across the board.

PS - I, for one, am eagerly awaiting the return of the SSPX and similar groups to the bosom of the Church.

Well, fair enough. Not a solid argument on my part for defense of Hoyos’s opinion. No one is calling * him * heretic though lol.