NO FORMAL SSPX SCHISM, says Cardinal!

[brendan1104]

from 30 Days, November 9, 2005:

After the Pope’s audience with the Superior of the Saint Pius X Fraternity
«Rapprochement by unhasty stages, but not too slow either»

Interview with Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, President of «Ecclesia Dei», on relations between Rome and the Lefebvrians

Interview with Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos by Gianni Cardinale

«The Holy Father Benedict XVI this morning received, in the Apostolic Palace of Castel Gandolfo, the Superior General of the Saint Pius X Fraternity, Monsignor Bernard Fellay, who had requested it. The Pope was accompanied by the Most Eminent Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”. The meeting took place in an atmosphere of love for the Church and of desire to reach perfect communion. Albeit aware of the difficulties, the wish to proceed by stages and in reasonable time was shown». In these words a communiqué of the Press Office of the Holy See on 29 August last gave news of the first contact between the new Pontiff and the Fraternity that, as the Vatican Radio bulletin of the same day reminded us, «was founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who died on 25 March 1991».
The news of the audience granted by Pope Benedict XVI, though not published by the “Our News” feature of L’Osservatore Romano, appeared, however, in a short paragraph at the bottom of page 4 in the official newspaper of the Holy See dated 31 August.
30Days asked Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos about the hearing of August 29, at which Don Franz Schmidberger, an old collaborator of Monsignor Lefebvre and well known to Pope Ratzinger, was also present. Since April 2000 Cardinal Hoyos has been President of the Pontifical Commission «Ecclesia Dei», the Vatican body concerned with relations with the variegated traditionalist world, and has also, since 1996, been head of the Congregation for the Clergy.

[u]Interview: [/u]

Your Eminence, what was the nature of the audience granted by the Pope to the Superior General of the Saint Pius X Fraternity?

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…

[b]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. [/b]

Then there was no more official contact up to the Great Jubilee of 2000.

HOYOS: As President of the Pontifical Commission «Ecclesia Dei», learning that they were on a pilgrimage to Rome, I invited the bishops ordained by Monsignor Lefebvre to lunch, for an informal meeting, to get to know each other. Since then I have had many meetings with His Excellence Monsignor Fellay and with other members of the Fraternity. Meetings that have always taken place in a very positive atmosphere. So much so that at a certain point I believed we were really very close to a full rapprochement.

Was the Pope aware of these contacts?

HOYOS: John Paul II was constantly informed of them all. Not only that. The Pontiff himself received for a brief meeting in his private chapel Monsignor Fellay and Don Michele Simoulin, then Superior of the communion of the Fraternity of Albano Laziale. There was no true and proper dialogue, but on that occasion the Pope expressed the wish that dialogue could be taken up by imparting his blessing.

Earlier you suggested that at a certain moment you thought that rapprochement was imminent; then what happened?

HOYOS: I got the impression, from His Excellence Monsignor Fellay, and from his collaborators, of something like fear, as if Rome were laying a trap for them. As if the Holy See intended to absorb them so as then to close off the possibility of celebrating the mass of Saint Pius V and clamping down on their critical remarks on some developments and interpretations following Vatican Council II. So there was no rapprochement, but dialogue has continued.

In this context, in 2001, there was, however, rapprochement with the Brazilian group close to the Fraternity, the one now headed by Monsignor Fernando Arêas Rifan, who was elected in 2002 by the Holy See as bishop and titular of the personal apostolic administration of San Giovanni Maria Vianney in Campos.

HOYOS: There the situation was very different, because while the Saint Pius X Fraternity is an unrecognized association, served by bishops who declare themselves “auxiliaries”, in Brazil instead Bishop Castro Mayer when he renounced the diocese, was followed by a fifty or so priests who in fact maintained a parallel organization to the diocese. When Monsignor Castro Mayer died, one of the priests was consecrated bishop by the Lefebvrian bishops. Thanks be to God this bishop, Monsignor Rangel, and his priests, amongst whom the current bishop administrator apostolic Monsignor Rifan, at the moment of asking for rapprochement, distancing himself in this from the bishops of the Fraternity, recognized that the conditions that Monsignor Lefebvre in his time called “of necessity”, no longer existed to justify the consecration of bishops without apostolic mandate. And this because the Pope had manifested his wish of granting them the use of the Tridentine rite, recognizing their particularity. On their side there was the recognition of the validity of the new rite of the Mass and of the legitimacy of Vatican Council II, though proposing to keep up respectful and honest discussion on some less clear Council texts, on some interpretations of those texts and on some developments after Vatican II.

Do you think the solution adopted in Campos successful?

HOYOS: The facts confirm it. Thanks be to God, the faithful and the priests of the diocese and of the administration co-exist in fraternal fashion, the two bishops meet frequently for the necessary coordination. Not only that. A dozen bishops from Brazil have already signed conventions with the administration to help the faithful of their dioceses who love the old liturgy.

But it was a solution that didn’t please the leaders of the Fraternity…

HOYOS: Yes, the Campos solution was a delicate moment. Because the Fraternity was annoyed. Whereas for me it was something providential because it showed a possible way for a wider solution of the question.

Your Eminence, let us go back to the audience of 29 August. How was it organized?

HOYOS: The audience was requested by Monsignor Fellay through the normal channels, through me as Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy and President of «Ecclesia Dei», given that the Saint Pius X Fraternity is a priestly body composed of priests validly ordained even if in an illegal way. The request was passed to the Pope. And the Pope decided to grant the audience. Ratzinger the theologian, Cardinal Ratzinger, with his great duties, had always kept up with the question and knew the question and the persons involved in the dialogue well. Pope Benedict XVI could add to that the special presence of the Holy Spirit guaranteed by the fact of having become Peter’s Successor.

What can you tell us of the audience?

HOYOS: It was a meeting under the sign of charity, in the theological sense, of love of God and of His Church. It was a conversation among brothers who desire, with the help of God, to knit back the fabric of full unity. The Pope let those present speak: Monsignor Fellay, Father Schmidberger and myself. And then the Holy Father spoke, making a strong appeal for unity and expressing the wish that future rapprochement come by unhasty stages, but not too slow.

What observations were made by the Superior of the Saint Pius X?

HOYOS: Monsignor Fellay, but this was known even beforehand, was able to express his fears on the state of the Catholic Church in the light of the abuses, not only liturgical, that have occurred since Vatican Council II. I believe that critical contributions of that sort that can come from the Fraternity can be a treasure for the Church, when expressed under the charisma of Peter and in charity among brethren. In the Church in fact we are all free to formulate critical observations on what doesn’t concern dogma and the essential discipline of the Church itself. On that subject I can testify that Cardinal Ratzinger was already fully convinced of the need for theological dialogue on the difficult points. In full unity there is more light to be found for studying these sensitive points.

After the audience an authoritative cardinal suggested that the Fraternity should recognize the legitimacy of the present Pontiff…

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.

HOYOS: [b]The mass of Saint Pius V has never been abolished. [/b]
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.

Are many bishops against?

HOYOS: At times the pastoral anxiety of a bishop leads him to think that granting permission to celebrate the Tridentine mass in his diocese may create confusion among the people of God. And when believers who ask for this type of celebration are very few, the perplexity can be understood. Whereas when it’s a more substantial group wanting the mass, it’s up to the Pontifical Commission «Ecclesia Dei» to remind the bishop, honestly and kindly, that the wish of Peter’s Successor is of be generous in responding in favor of these believers. And I see with joy that, day after day, there are ever more who so respond.

You are well acquainted with the traditionalist world. How do you judge the personal piety of the priests who belong to it?

HOYOS: Many traditionalist priests I have known have made an excellent impression on me: they have a sincere love for the mystery. Unfortunately there can also be fanatics who are bound to the old liturgy as one can be bound to a mathematical formula of which one doesn’t even understand the value in depth.

Do you think they represent the legacy of a past in any case on the way to extinction?

HOYOS: At the World Day of Youth in Cologne there was a considerable group of young people attached to the traditional mass. The echoes have been positive. And it shows how short-sighted it is to consider the traditionalist phenomenon as on the way to exhaustion. Not least because in the traditionalist world, in proportion, the number of priestly vocations is decidedly superior to that of many diocese in the Church.

In September 2001 John Paul II, in a speech to the plenary assembly of the Congregation for Divine Worship, praised the «very fine prayers» in the Missal of Saint Pius V. The speech was published with unusual delay by L’Osservatore Romano and has never been published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, though it usually prints papal speeches to the plenary assemblies of the Roman departments. When you then, on 24 May 2003, celebrated, for the first time after the post-council liturgical reform, a Tridentine mass in a patriarchal Roman basilica, that of Saint Mary Major, L’Osservatore Romano totally ignored the event. What do you think of these two acts of “censorship”?

HOYOS: I prefer to judge facts rather than intentions and I don’t know what the cause of the two missing notices is, which, however, had ample repercussion.

Do you think that the above-mentioned speech of John Paul II may be finally published in the Acta?

HOYOS: If it wasn’t the explicit wish of the Pope not to publish that speech, even when it was he who made it, I think it’s a serious thing not to have done so.

The title of a piece in Corriere della Sera of 26 August, anticipating the audience of three days later, described relations between the so-called Lefebvrians and the Holy See as “the impossible peace”.

HOYOS: The newspapers can say that and a great many other things. Luckily, and I stress luckily, newspapers are not infallible.

Your Eminence, a last word for those who reproach the Fraternity with using rough language, at times verging on irreverence, towards the Holy See.

HOYOS: It can cause distress, but at bottom I’m not surprised by the fact that words, articles, letters may appear that use a rather crude language. Including some statements attributed to His excellency Monsignor Fellay. Until there is full unity, and so full mutual charity, one can’t be scandalized if there is still some verbal intemperance. It’s always well to keep in mind Augustine’s saying: «In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas».

From Catholic Family News, January 2006 Edition:

An Interview with
Bishop Richard Williamson
of the Society of Saint Pius X

Note: In a recent 30 Days interview, (No. 9, 2005), Vatican Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, admitted that the Society of Saint Pius X is not in formal schism, and that the Latin Tridentine Mass was never abolished. Then on December 8, Una Voce of Italy published that Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, had a confidential five-hour meeting with Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos at the Vatican in late November. Catholic Family News Editor, John Vennari, contacted Bishop Richard Williamson, Rector of Nuestra Senora Corredentor Seminary in Argentina, for his comments.

[u]Interview:[/u]

CFN: Would you comment on Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos’ recent statement that the Society of Saint Pius X is not in formal schism?

Bishop Williamson: If Cardinal Castrillon said recently that the SSPX is not in schism, that is a statement that should be given wide publicity, because by no means do all Catholics see clearly that that is the truth of the matter. The SSPX has never been in schism because it has never rejected the right of the Church authorities in Rome to govern the Church, it has only said that certain of the orders given by those authorities cannot be obeyed because they are contrary to the good of the Church. Such selective “disobedience” has never amounted to schism.

CFN: Another surprising remark from Cardinal Hoyos was his admission that the Latin Tridentine Mass was never abolished.

BW: Again, if Cardinal Castrillon stated that the Tridentine rite of Mass has never been forbidden, that is another statement that should be given wide publicity, because many Catholic priests would love to celebrate Mass in that rite who presently still believe it is forbidden to them. Of course the Latin Tridentine Mass was never abolished, but the impression has come from Rome for a long time that it was abolished.

CFN: Una Voce from Italy reported of a recent five-hour meeting between Cardinal Hoyos and Bishop Fellay. One of the things it says was discussed was the possibility of the Vatican “lifting” the excommunication of the SSPX bishops. Now since the 1988 Consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX have insisted there was no legal excommunication in the first place, and thus, no excommunication to lift. How do you see this being resolved?

BW: On Rome’s declaration at the end of June, 1988, that Archbishop Lefebvre and the four bishops who allowed themselves to be consecrated by him without permission had automatically, by Church law, excommunicated themselves, the SSPX has always taken the position that, by Church law, there was no such excommunication, because the five bishops all acted out of the sincere conviction — even if they were mistaken (see New Code, Canon #1323, No. 4) that the grave Church crisis necessitated the consecrations. In pursuit of mutual harmony, the SSPX may now seek a face-saving formula for Rome to “lift” the “excommunication,” but no mutual harmony can justify any formula which would betray the truth. “Harmony” based on untruth is no true harmony!

The grave problem here underlying any pursuit of harmony between Rome and the SSPX is that Rome still does not believe there is a crisis in the Church anything like as grave as the SSPX believes. Until Rome sees that, all “resolution” of problems between the SSPX and Rome must be difficult, to say the least.

CFN: The Conciliar hierarchy at the Vatican speaks of possibly stopping abuses. But traditional Catholics will define the term “abuse” differently from the Novus Ordo hierarchy. For traditional Catholics, the New Mass itself is an abuse, as (in the words of Cardinal Ottaviani), it “represents a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent”.

BW: Here is a classic example of that difficulty. Rome presently still sees no grave problem intrinsic to the new rite of Mass (from Paul VI in 1969). Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX, on the other hand, have always held that that new rite is so intrinsically de-Catholicised (down-playing of Real Presence, true sacrifice, sacrificing priesthood) that it gravely endangers the faith both of priest celebrating it and of laity attending it. Until Rome begins to see how grave is the problem of the Novus Ordo Mass, it is difficult to see how any true harmony can be established between Rome and the SSPX.

CFN: Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1974 Declaration (see below) sums up the mission of the Society of Saint Pius X. Do you think that the SSPX could properly fulfill this mission under present-day Vatican approval?

BW: Whether the SSPX could fulfil its mission as presented by Archbishop Lefebvre in November of 1974 if the SSPX came under present-day Vatican approval, would have to depend on the conditions required by the Vatican for that approval. For instance, there is every likelihood that this Vatican would require some kind of SSPX acceptance of the Second Vatican Council. But that Council and the New Mass are the heart of the theory and practice respectively of that changing of the Catholic religion which it is the SSPX’s mission to refuse. So it is difficult to imagine this Rome offering any kind of approval which the SSPX, faithful to the Archbishop’s famous Declaration, could accept.

CFN: After Bishop Fellay’s August 29 meeting with Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Francesco Pompedda, the former prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, told the Italian daily La Stampa that the Society of St. Pius X could only be reconciled to the Holy See if it recognizes the validity of Vatican II decrees. Yet Archbishop Lefebvre rightly pointed out that the Vatican II decrees are a “patchwork” — liberal documents with traditional patching. How then could the SSPX “accept” Vatican II?

BW: Sure enough. It is not surprising that immediately after Bishop Fellay’s meeting with Pope Benedict XVI last August, a Roman Cardinal would stake out Conciliar Rome’s claim that reconciliation between Rome and the SSPX would require SSPX recognition of the Vatican II decrees. But those decrees are indeed a “patchwork,” mixing the (old) Catholic religion with the (new) Conciliar religion. The SSPX in order to accept them, would have to betray its very reason for existing, which is the refusal of that new religion

CFN: In February 2004, the Society of Saint Pius X published “From Ecumenism to Silent Apostasy,” sent to all the Cardinals in the world. It was a theological criticism, based on the perennial Magisterium of the Church, against Conciliar and post-Conciliar ecumenism. Cardinal Hoyos was publicly critical of this SSPX document, claiming “no one has the right to judge the Holy See,” even though the document challenged ecumenism, but did not pass a judgment on the person of the Pope.

BW: The SSPX February 2004 document, “From Ecumenism to Silent Apostasy” was an exposition of classic and true Catholic doctrine, which cannot change, on relations between the true Catholic Church and all other religions which must more or less deny the doctrine of that Church in order to be different from it. The question is one of truth, not of a right or lack of right “to judge the Holy See.” The Holy See depends upon the truth. However, it is typical of the present-day Vatican to avoid the primary questions of truth and to divert them towards secondary questions of discipline, obedience, “lack of right to judge,” etc., etc. In fact, in the Catholic Church, the primary questions of doctrine and truth govern those secondary questions. In the Conciliar Church, truth no longer reigns supreme.

CFN: Thank you for your comments, Your Excellency. Any closing remarks?

BW: What is slowly being grasped by sincere Catholics, but not by the present authorities of the Church in Rome, is that Vatican II and the New Mass represent a mixture of Catholicism and a new man-centered religion, with the tilt in both being towards the new religion. Between true Catholicism and this new religion there is a war to the death, which can only end in the unmasking and destruction of the new religion, because Our Lord has promised that His religion, true Catholicism, will last to the end of the world.

If, then, there is to be harmony between the Rome of Vatican II and the SSPX of the Archbishop’s truly Catholic Declaration of November 1974, there are only three possibilities: either Rome abandons the Conciliar religion; or the SSPX betrays the Catholic religion; or Rome half-abandons and the SSPX half-betrays, for there to be some “meeting” in between.

These are not harsh words but simply the reality of the matter, which many souls still do not see, but which they will see if they seek the truth

Edited December 29, 2005 by brendan1104

[brendan1104]

Now, with Cardinal Hoyos' interview and Monsignor Perl's letter, who can still say that the SSPX is in formal schism and that attending a Mass there doesn't fulfill an obligation?

[the_rev]

We don't care what you have to say Brendan. holy Mother Church teaches they are in Schism, so thus we abide by the Church. Your Cardinal and Monsingor are not the pope nor infaliable, nor are they God.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

btw John Paul II said you could attend mass there and it would fufill your sunday obligation so that is not anything new.


i am still sruggiling with the SSPX.

but right now i am fed up with the un-charitable trads on Angel queen.
and the extremly anti-semetic comments made by Bishop Williamson.

Edited December 29, 2005 by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

[Fidei Defensor]

Attending their mass does fulfill the Sunday obligation, but should only be attended in grave necessity, when there are no other masses available. This is nothing new.

[Fidei Defensor]

The following letter was sent to an Australian man in response to a letter he addressed to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. The author is the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission responsible for the implementation of Ecclesia Dei, the Holy Father's letter announcing the excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and encouraging broader implementation of the Indult allowing the celebration of the Tridentine Mass.


[quote]N. 343/98
Rome, 27 October 1998




Dear ______,

We wish to acknowledge receipt of your document, Statements and Allegations Made By Some Australian Members of The Society of St. Pius X, which you sent to His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger for evaluation. It has been transmitted to this Pontifical Commission as dealing with matters that come within our particular competence.

First of all, we thank God that you have been able to be Sufficiently objective about the claims of the Society of St. Pius X to leave it and return to full communion with the Church. We recognize that this has been a long journey for you and your wife and we trust that all that you have experienced has helped you to be a better Catholic, aware of the wounds of the Church in its members on earth, but even more conscious of its indefectibility.

You will have noted that we are that very Pontifical Commission referred to in Father Jean Violette's letter to you of 21 January 1995 as made up of "liberals, modernists who have infiltrated the positions of authority in the Church and who are using their authority to do away with Tradition..." We trust that you will now understand that this is not a fair description of us or of our often difficult and delicate work.

We will now attempt to address ourselves to your questions in the order in which you have raised them.

a. The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church. In an Apostolic Letter which he issued motu proprio (on his own initiative) he declared that

Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. (Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382).

Those mentioned above who are still living and have not asked pardon from the Church for the ill which they have caused are still under the censure of excommunication.

b. While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265). In the strict sense there are no "lay members" of the Society of St. Pius X, only those who frequent their Masses and receive the sacraments from them.

While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass, and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith.

It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.

b. Thus far the Church has not officially declared what Constitutes "formal adherence to the schism" inaugurated by the late Archbishop Lefebvre (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), but the Code of Canon Law defines schism as "refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (canon 751). The above citation together with the other documentation which you have included in your dossier and your own exchange of correspondence with Father Violette clearly indicate the extent to which many in authority in the Society of St. Pius X corroborate that definition.

c. It may still be difficult to characterize the entire Society of St. Pius X, but the documentation which you have submitted witnesses to a consistent condemnation of the new Mass, the Pope and anyone who disagrees with the authorities of the Society in the smallest degree. Such behaviour is not consistent with the practice of the Catholic faith.

d. We reiterate what we stated above: "The Pope is the Supreme legislator in the Church." Communion with him is a fundamental, non-negotiable hallmark of Catholicism which is not determined by those who set themselves up to judge him, but by the Pope himself (cf. Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium #22-25).

e. The question of the doctrine held by the late Father Leonard Feeney is a complex one. He died in full communion with the Church and many of his former disciples are also now in full communion while some are not. We do not judge it opportune to enter into this question.

f. You want to know how authoritative our responses are. We Must indicate to you that this letter accurately reflects the practice and pastoral solicitude of this Pontifical Commission, but it is not an official declaration of the Holy See. Those declarations are fundamentally limited to Quattuor abhinc annos of 3 October 1984 and Ecclesia Dei of 2 July 1988, both of which were published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. The Holy Father does not ordinarily make detailed statements on very specific questions such as those which you have submitted. He entrusts such responses to the variou dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which have competence in particular areas. With regard to the matters which you have brought up, the competence belongs to this Pontifical Commission.

g. The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts rules primarily on the interpretation of the law. Any more Authoritative response to your questions than the one we have given would be more likely to come from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The fact that that Congregation has transmitted your dossier to us indicates that at this time our response should be sufficient. Statements of dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which touch on faith and morals are not considered infallible, but should be taken as norms of moral certitude.

i. Our response to your questions may be made public.



With prayerful best wishes I remain,
Sincerely yours in Christ,

(signed) Msgr. Camille Perl
Secretary[/quote]

[Ash Wednesday]

Why was this started in Open Mic, when we know this topic usually ends up on the Debate Table?

[brendan1104]

This isn't meant for a debate, only to prove that the SSPX was never in schism, and now a high-ranking Vatican cardinal (not to mention that he's head of Rome's commission on the Latin Mass) has finally, and publicly stated that they're not...

[Fidei Defensor]

It does not matter. Even in the letter above, they admit that it has not been declared a formal schism, but they said
[quote]"Thus far the Church has not officially declared what Constitutes "formal adherence to the schism" inaugurated by the late Archbishop Lefebvre (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), but the Code of Canon Law defines schism as "refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (canon 751). The above citation together with the other documentation which you have included in your dossier and your own exchange of correspondence with Father Violette clearly indicate the extent to which many in authority in the Society of St. Pius X corroborate that definition."[/quote]
Besides, "Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. (Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382)."

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='brendan1104' date='Dec 29 2005, 07:26 PM']This isn't meant for a debate, only to prove that  the SSPX was never in schism, and now a high-ranking Vatican cardinal (not to mention that he's head of Rome's commission on the Latin Mass) has finally, and publicly stated that they're not...
[right][snapback]839228[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
One high ranking quote does not a policy make. The leaders WERE EXCOMMUNICATED, they are outside the realm of Catholics in good standings, end of discussion.

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='brendan1104' date='Dec 29 2005, 06:26 PM']This isn't meant for a debate, only to prove that  the SSPX was never in schism, and now a high-ranking Vatican cardinal (not to mention that he's head of Rome's commission on the Latin Mass) has finally, and publicly stated that they're not...
[right][snapback]839228[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

If you're trying to prove something, isn't that what debates are for?

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

Brendan,

Bishop Fellay even said that a decree of excommunication was placed on the SSPX.

[toledo_jesus]

let the protestant believe what he wants...

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 29 2005, 12:08 PM']btw John Paul II said you could attend mass there and it would fufill your sunday obligation so that is not anything new.
i am still sruggiling with the SSPX.

but right now i am fed up with the un-charitable trads on Angel queen.
and the extremly anti-semetic comments made by Bishop Williamson.
[right][snapback]838721[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I have a friend who knew Bishop Williamson (well, her dad did at least).

That's a lot of why they stopped going to SSPX Masses.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

thats interesting....

what exactly did they not like about Williamson?