SSPX really in schism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic_woman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholic_woman

Guest
I have been a visitor to this site for many months now. I am also a “Traditional Catholic”. I have been a “Traditional Catholic” my entire life (all 30 some years). I attend independent and SSPX Masses. My family and I have attended these Masses always.

I have read posts that have claimed the SSPX is in schism. Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos says very plainly that this is not true.

Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX, had a meeting with Pope Benedict XVI on August 29, 2005. Cardinal Hoyos, as President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”, was also in attendance. 30Days, a publication from Rome, interviewed Cardinal Hoyos after the meeting with Bishop Fellay. The full text can be found at 30giorni.it/us/articolo_stampa.asp?id=9360.

The pertinent excerpt from the interview is as follows:

**Your Eminence, what was the nature of the audience granted by the Pope to the Superior General of the Saint Pius X Fraternity? **
DARÍOCASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The audience is part of a process that began with a very important intervention by the then Cardinal Ratzinger, who signed a protocol of agreement with Monsignor Lefebvre before the latter decided to proceed to the episcopal consecrations of 1988.
**Monsignor Lefebvre did not back off… **
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism. (emphasis added)

The President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” has said it. The SSPX is NOT schismatic.
 
40.png
catholic_woman:
The President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” has said it. The SSPX is NOT schismatic.
Click to expand...
If only that were true, but John Paul II himself has decreed otherwise:
John Paul II:
c)In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. 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.(8)
Click to expand...
Full text can be found here http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html
 
I guess you’re more Catholic than the Cardinal!

michnews.com/artman/publish/article_10773.shtml

Speaking of schism, the Vatican has instructed that the English language of the Mass be correctly translated. In response to this, the USCCB have given their $0.02 on the matter as certainly America has spots on the ICEL. Well, turns out that many, if not most of bishops of the USCCB are basically telling the Holy See to drop dead on that if you read the article below.

adoremus.org/1205Bishops_Translations.html
 
40.png
EddieArent:
I guess you’re more Catholic than the Cardinal!

michnews.com/artman/publish/article_10773.shtml

Speaking of schism, the Vatican has instructed that the English language of the Mass be correctly translated. In response to this, the USCCB have given their $0.02 on the matter as certainly America has spots on the ICEL. Well, turns out that many, if not most of bishops of the USCCB are basically telling the Holy See to drop dead on that if you read the article below.

adoremus.org/1205Bishops_Translations.html
Click to expand...
Eddie! Long time, no read. :tiphat:

I think the Holy See needs to tell the USCCB to drop dead.

What we need is a real autocrat as Pope. Which we’d get if they’d ever get around to electing me.

Oh well. There’s always the next conclave.
 
Greetings catholic_woman

Cardinal Hoyos has been deliberately misrepresented in what he HAS said:
Ummmm, No he didn’t! He DID say: “even if it was not a “FORMAL” schism”! - and he preceded that statement (which may be taken as a concession for the sake of argument) with “Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration [of the four bishops, F.J.L.] and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism.” Note:

Even the Concise Oxford Dictionary has for “Schism - Separation of a Church into two Churches or succession of part of a Church …”
Thus the “Remnanters”, SSPXers and Company would have us believe that Cardinal Hoyos said: “hence the situation of schism came about even if there was not a schism.” More at <A href=“http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1103015"”>Catholic Answers

There is no-one who out-guns the Vicar of Christ, who is Supreme Pontiff, Law-Maker and Law-Interpreter; it was Pope John Paul II who authoratively declared that Lefebvre and the four bishops had separated themselves by their acts and had self- incurred excommunication for the very grave crime of schism.

It is NOT the perpretator of a crime who judges himself whether or not he is guilty or not liable to a penalty - although it IS historical for all past heretics and schismatics to bleat as did Lefebvre & Company.

The solution is to genuinely return to the unity of the Church and fight the “good fight” lawfully within the Church.
 
40.png
EddieArent:
I guess you’re more Catholic than the Cardinal!

michnews.com/artman/publ…cle_10773.shtml
Click to expand...
Your referring to John Paul II I suspect, whom I was mearly quoting in my last post, just read the bold print. Here it is again:
John Paul II:
c)In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. 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.(8)
Click to expand...
And the link: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

And it says nothing from the link you posted about the 1988 excommunications being rescinded by Benedict XVI.

Sorry, but your attempt to change the facts won’t work here this time.😉
 
40.png
EddieArent:
I guess you’re more Catholic than the Cardinal!

michnews.com/artman/publish/article_10773.shtml

Speaking of schism, the Vatican has instructed that the English language of the Mass be correctly translated. In response to this, the USCCB have given their $0.02 on the matter as certainly America has spots on the ICEL. Well, turns out that many, if not most of bishops of the USCCB are basically telling the Holy See to drop dead on that if you read the article below.

adoremus.org/1205Bishops_Translations.html
Click to expand...
For some reason that does not surprise me at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top