Working for sspx but not supporting them

[JKirkLVNV]

radio-cipher:

please read this:

30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=9360

It is an article from the magazine **30 Days, **an interview with Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, head of the Congregation for the Clergy and President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”. Here are some excerpts:

" 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. "
" After the audience an authoritative cardinal suggested that the Fraternity should recognize the legitimacy of the present Pontiff… **
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately that is proof that within the Church, even at high levels, there is not always full knowledge of the Fraternity. The Fraternity has always recognized in John Paul II, and now in Benedict XVI, the legitimate successor of Saint Peter. That is not a problem. That then there are traditionalist groups that don’t recognize the last popes, the so-called “empty throne” people, is another question that doesn’t concern the Saint Pius X Fraternity.
It is known that the Saint Pius X Fraternity is asking the Holy See for a liberalization of the so-called Tridentine mass and a declaration affirming that this liturgy has never been abolished.
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The mass of Saint Pius V has never been abolished. As for liberalization, I remember that under the pontificate of John Paul II there was a meeting of all the department heads of the Roman Curia, in which the vast majority were not against such a request. It would be dangerous to create opposition between the old rite and the new. The liturgy cannot be a battlefield. As priest, as cardinal and as Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, I feel great pain in seeing the unacceptable language at times used of the wish of Jesus to give his own body and blood, and to entrust them to his Church. And this is true of some spokesmen of the Saint Pius X Fraternity, but not only them. "

Apropos of nothing. As has been pointed out numerous times in these forums, the Cardinal never said that the SSPX were not in formal schism, he was saying that the situation is a situation of seperation “even if it was not a formal schism” (ie, “it’s a bad situation, even if it’s not a formal schism,” NOT “it’s not a formal schism.”). AND even if he does think that, an entire college of Cardinals can go on and on about their own opinions, but that doesn’t trump a pope, the Vicar of Christ on earth. By his wicked disobedience and by their complicity in the ordinations, Lefebreve and the four bishops excommunicated THEMSELVES. HH Pope John Paul II, of happy memory, merely confirmed that in Ecclesia Dei. The SSPX are schismatic, their bishops excommunicate, and their priests utterly without faculties.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

indaba:

Hullo, Benno. I’m still finding out about SSPX - actually going through the 23 chapters of the founder’s “Letter to Confused Catholics”. Maybe you have read it :
www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/index.htm

I think it’s worth seeing what he has to say. One thing is true: the post-concilar church has not the influence or clear vision of its “mandate” that it had before Vatican ll. Is there a necesary connection? It has also adapted rather easily to “the times”, which is OK in terms of technology, perhaps, but surely not in matters of moral doctrine & faith which are supposed to be for all time, aren’t they?

Hoping both of us and others can see clearly in all this!

Yrs in Christ,

This is subjective opinion only.

 

[Benno]

hi indaba,
well first of all, i have been honest with the people there. there’s no duplicity involved.
secondly, the origins of the society and the evidence of schismatic/ heretical/ extremist mindsets worry me a lot, especially because i have come to love many people who adhere to the society. there is, i think, a difference between the founders and the majority of the people now involved, including many of the priests.
i believe wholeheartedly that the saints would do their best to reform the church by remaining within it and doing what they could from within. only a little leaven is needed, as great reformer saints such as teresa of avila demonstrate.
a question - if the society splits into two groups, one of whom reconciles with and makes concessions to the vatican, and the other of whom go even further into their own isolationism etc (with ostensibly the best intentions), which group will you follow? can you see from this dilemma, which i’m sure is not far off, why there is greater wisdom and service to the church to be found in communion with and submission to Rome?
yours in Christ

 

[Benno]

oops sorry - my internet kept cutting out the other day so i saved what i’d written and re-posted it, which is how i came up with a double of a previous post! it’s not even in the order of response that it should be, so indaba, please scroll up a few posts for the most recent response! sorry!